PSH-18-0066

*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 6, 2018 ) Case No.: PSH-18-0066
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: December 11, 2018
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (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, “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.
I. BACKGROUND
On October 10, 2018, the Individual, a DOE Security Clearance holder, submitted an Incident
Report to the Local Security Office (LSO) indicating that, on October 6, 2017, police had arrested
the Individual, charged him with Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon (Intoxication), and transported
him to a hospital for involuntarily observation, after the Individual had threatened to beat his minor
son, and then while intoxicated and in the possession of a firearm, threatened to commit suicide.
Ex. 7 at 4-7. In addition, the LSO was informed that child protection authorities had initiated an
investigation of the Individual because of the October 6, 2017, incident and additional information
obtained by the police. The LSO conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the Individual
on January 11, 2018. During this PSI, the Individual admitted a longstanding pattern of excessive
alcohol use that had raised the concerns of friends and relatives. He further admitted that he had
consumed a large quantity of alcohol prior to the October 6, 2107, incident, and had threatened to
commit suicide on at least three occasions, including the night of the incident. Because the
background investigation and the PSI raised concerns about the Individual’s alcohol use and
psychological state, the LSO asked the Individual to undergo a forensic psychological evaluation
by a DOE Psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist). The Psychiatrist conducted an evaluation of the Individual
on March 5, 2018, and on March 12, 2018, he issued a report concluding that the Individual meets
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 -
the criteria set forth in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association,
Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for Alcohol Use Disorder - moderate, in early remission.”2 Ex. 9 at 13. The
Psychiatrist further opined that this disorder can impair the Individual’s judgment, reliability,
stability, and trustworthiness. 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 Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge
in this matter on September 7, 2018. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d),
(e) and (g), I took testimony from the Individual, his spouse (the Spouse), his counselor (the
Counselor), and the Psychiatrist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-18-0066 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 12 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 12 (hereinafter cited
as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted 11 exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through K.
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 Guidelines G, and J of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines).
Under Guideline G: Alcohol Consumption, the LSO alleged that the Individual has been diagnosed
by the Psychiatrist with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, under the DSM-5, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The LSO further alleged that the Individual has a history
of an alcohol-related arrest and involuntary hospitalization, three incidents where he threatened to
commit suicide while under the influence of alcohol, and two incidents of threatened or actual
physical abuse of his minor children while under the influence of alcohol. In addition, the
Individual admitted that he has a problem with alcohol and has reported that his friends and family
have expressed concerns about his problematic use of alcohol. This information 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 (1) “alcohol-related incidents
away from work, such as . . . child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of
concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the individual has
been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.” Guideline G at § 22(a); (2) “habitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.” Guideline G at § 22(c); and (3) “diagnosis by a duly qualified
2 The Psychiatrist did not, however, conclude that the Individual had any emotional, mental, or personality disorders
or conditions that could impair his judgement, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, other than his Alcohol Use
Disorder. Ex. 9 at 14.
- 3 -
medical or mental health professional . . . of [an] alcohol use disorder.” Guideline G at ¶ 22(d).
These allegations adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
Under Guideline J: Criminal Conduct, the LSO alleges that police detained and charged the
Individual with Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon (Intoxication) as a result of the October 6,
2017, incident. The LSO further alleged that the Individual had been the subject of an investigation
by child protection authorities because he had threatened to beat his son during that incident and
had battered his minor daughter during a previous incident. Criminal activity creates doubt about
a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness and calls into question a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Guideline J at ¶ 30. These allegations of
criminal activity adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of 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 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). 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. The discussion below reflects my application of these
factors to the testimony and exhibits presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
On October 6, 2017, the Individual became intoxicated, after consuming approximately seven units
of alcohol. Ex. 11 at 12, 16. The Individual became upset with his minor son, and threatened to
beat him. Ex. 7 at 6. An argument ensued between the Individual and the Spouse. Ex. 11 at 12.
During this argument, in the presence of his minor daughter, the Individual pointed a firearm at his
head and threatened to kill himself. Ex. 7 at 6. The Individual’s minor son contacted the local
police to report that the Individual was threatening to commit suicide. Ex. 8 at 2; Ex. 7 at 4. After,
interviewing the Individual, his spouse, and his children, the police decided to involuntarily
transport the Individual to a hospital where he was kept overnight for evaluation and observation.
Ex. 7 at 7; Ex. 11 at 12. Because the Individual was in possession of a firearm while intoxicated,
- 4 -
the police charged him with Negligent Use of a Deadly Weapon. Ex. 7 at 7; Ex. 11 at 22. This
charge was ultimately dismissed on December 11, 2017. Ex. B. However, because the police were
informed that the Individual had threatened to beat their minor son, and previously “abused” their
minor daughter, child protection authorities began an investigation of the Individual and the
Spouse. Ex. C; Ex. 7 at 6. This investigation substantiated “the allegations of physical neglect due
to alcohol abuse adult, physical abuse due to emotional abuse by [the Individual] toward [his three
minor children].” Ex. C. The child protection authorities recommended that the Individual undergo
assessments for “substance abuse” and “mental health/domestic violence.” Ex. C.
Because of the security concerns raised by the October 6, 2017, incident, the ensuing arrest, the
involuntary hospitalization, and the child protection investigation, the LSO conducted a PSI of the
Individual on January 11, 2018. During the PSI, the Individual admitted that he had consumed “a
few too many drinks,” on October 6, 2017, estimating that he consumed about six beers and one
whiskey prior to the incident. Ex. 11 at 12, 16. He then engaged in a loud argument with the
Spouse during which, he reported: “I grabbed a pistol, threatened to harm myself, at which point
my son called the police, they responded. I was remanded to, into protective custody, sent to the
hospital . . . .”3 Ex. 11 at 12. The Individual acknowledged that he had lost control during the
incident and attributed his behavior to his Prednisone treatment and alcohol abuse.4 Ex. 11 at 30-
31. The Individual acknowledged that he has an alcohol problem and reported that his counselor
had diagnosed him with “alcohol abuse.” Ex. 11 at 36, 93. The Individual reported that he “quit
drinking,” and had not consumed alcohol since the night of the October 6, 2017, incident. Ex. 11
at 13, 29, 37, 40, 70, 93-94. The Individual further reported that he had begun counseling and been
working with his Employee Assistance Program (EAP) in order to address his alcohol problem, as
well as issues resulting from his traumatic childhood. Ex. 11 at 13, 20. The Individual also reported
that he had completed a series of six alcohol education meetings provided by the EAP. Ex. 11 at
97. The Individual reported that his abstinence from alcohol has improved his marriage, and that
he was now happier and “having more fun” as a result of quitting drinking. Ex. 11 at 70, 96. The
Individual reported that child protective services had investigated allegations that he had abused
his children, and that the allegations had been substantiated. Ex. 11 at 19. As a result, the
Individual and his family were engaged in individual and family counseling. Ex. 11 at 19-20, 28-
29, 42.
The Individual reported that the criminal charges against him had been dismissed. Ex. 11 at 37.
He further reported that the child protection concerns had been resolved to the authorities’
3 The Individual admitted that he had a firearm and was threatening to use it on himself on the night of October 6,
2017, and on at least one other occasion. Ex. 11 at 51, 73.
4 The Individual reported that he had been informed by a medical professional that his behavior may have resulted
from a Prednisone treatment which had begun on October 3, 2017. Ex. 8 at 2. This assertion was corroborated by the
progress notes prepared by an attending physician during his October 6, 2018, hospitalization, in which the physician
states: “He had taken Prednisone for 2-3 days, strongly suggesting that this may have had something to do with his
dramatic mood changes and emotional instability . . .” Ex. 7 at 8. The physician further reported that the Individual
reported that alcohol was involved in the incident. Ex. 7 at 8. However, the Psychiatrist convincingly opined that it
was highly unlikely that the Individual’s suicidal behaviors were caused by his Prednisone therapy, but rather, were
likely the result of alcohol intoxication, noting that “suicidality is fairly common with alcohol intoxication—which
commonly increases depression and reduces impulse control.” Ex. 9 at 10. The Psychiatrist further noted that the
Individual’s previous incidents in which he threatened to commit suicide occurred when the Individual had been
intoxicated but not undergoing Prednisone therapy. Ex. 9 at 10. Accordingly, I am convinced that the Individual’s
Prednisone therapy is not likely a causative factor for the October 6, 2017, incident.
- 5 -
satisfaction. Ex. 11 at 42. The Individual also acknowledged that he has an anger management
problem. Ex. 11 at 48. The Individual admitted that, about a year prior to the October 6, 2107,
incident, he had “went a little bit overboard” and “got a little carried away” when he spanked his
12 year old daughter “more than would have been appropriate” with a belt. Ex. 11 at 43-44. The
Individual admitted he had been drinking when he when spanking his 12 year old daughter. Ex.
11 at 43-44. The Individual noted that this kind of behavior has only occurred when he is drinking.
Ex. 11 at 48-49. The Individual further noted that he began abusing alcohol in college, and quit
drinking for two to four years when his fraternity brothers expressed concerns about his drinking.
Ex. 11 at 60. He claimed that his drinking had escalated the past summer because of an injury
incurred while cycling. Ex. 11 at 63-64. He stated that he would drink from three to seven drinks
an evening when he was not on call for work. Ex. 11 at 64-65. The Individual reported that his
mother, a DOE psychologist, and his spouse had expressed concerns about his alcohol consumption
and that he began to hide his alcohol use from his spouse. Ex. 11 at 81-83, 87.
Because the PSI did not resolve the security concerns raised by the October 6, 2017, incident, the
LSO requested that the Individual be evaluated by the Psychiatrist. The Psychiatrist evaluated the
Individual on March 5, 2018, and issued his Psychiatric Assessment of the Individual on March
12, 2018. Ex. 9 at 1-2. In his Psychiatric Assessment, he diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol
Use Disorder, Moderate, in early remission.”5 Ex. 9 at 1, 12. The Psychiatrist further opined that
the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed from this condition, noting that the Individual had
“a persistent, serious, sometimes life-threatening alcohol use disorder,” had only abstained from
alcohol use for six months, and had only completed six months of his treatment program.6 Ex. 9
at 13-14. The Psychiatrist further opined that “continuing [the Individual’s] weekly individual
substance abuse counseling-with maintenance of abstinence from alcohol-for a total of one year
would provide adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from his alcohol use disorder.”
Ex. 9 at 14. The Psychiatrist stated that “[The Individual] does not have any emotional, mental, or
personality condition or conditions that can continue to impair his judgment, stability, reliability or
trustworthy not otherwise addressed above.” Ex. 9 at 14.
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline G Concerns
At the hearing, the Individual presented testimony showing that he recognized that he has an
alcohol use disorder and must permanently abstain from the use of alcohol. To this end the
5 The Individual informed the Psychiatrist that he last consumed alcohol on October 6, 2017. Ex. 9 at 8. The
Psychiatrist noted that he had administered laboratory tests to the Individual in order to deter whether the Individual
had been consuming alcohol, and that the results of this testing indicated that “he has not consumed alcohol within
about 80 hours of the testing, and that he has not engaged in regular, heavy drinking within a few weeks of the testing.”
Ex. 9 at 11-12.
6 The Psychiatrist noted that the Individual had begun individual counseling on October 13, 2017. Ex. 9 at 7.
- 6 -
Individual has convincingly testified that he has abstained from alcohol use since October 6, 2017,
(over 13 months prior to the hearing). Tr. at 67. This testimony has been corroborated by
laboratory testing, 7 and the testimony of the Spouse. Tr. at 17-18, 20-21, 51. The Individual has
also provided testimony and evidentiary support for additional steps he has taken to address his
Alcohol Use Disorder, including undergoing individual counseling, family therapy, receiving
alcohol education counseling, and attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings.
The Spouse testified at the hearing on the Individual’s behalf. The Spouse testified that the
Individual recognizes that he has an alcohol problem, no longer wishes to use alcohol, and plans to
abstain from future alcohol use. Tr. at 45-46, 51-52. She further testified that the Individual has
discontinued his alcohol use and has implemented several strategies to avoid alcohol, including
changing his diet, exercising, attending AA meetings, and working with his doctor to address his
asthma. Tr. at 18, 52. Most importantly, the Individual has been working with the Counselor to
address his alcohol problem. Tr. at 18. She testified that that they have removed all alcohol from
their home, and that she has also stopped drinking. Tr. at 18, 22. The Spouse testified that as a
result of the Individual’s counseling and abstinence from alcohol their family life and marriage
have improved. Tr. at 18-22, 48. The Individual’s relationship with his children has improved.
Tr. at 19-20. She reported that the Individual’s temperament has improved and he is less prone to
anger. Tr. at 18-19. She believes that alcohol was a contributing factor to the October 6, 2017,
incident, noting that she has not observed the Individual exhibit suicidal behavior when he was not
under the influence of alcohol.8 Tr. at 26. The Spouse testified that the Individual had been using
alcohol when he hit his daughter with a belt. Tr. at 32-33. The Spouse testified that their children
were afraid of the Individual when he was using alcohol, but are now less afraid of him, although
they are still somewhat wary of him. Tr. at 34, 41-48. The Spouse acknowledged that the October
6, 2017, incident was not the only occasion in which the Individual threatened to commit suicide.
Tr. at 34. She testified that their children and their family received counseling as a result of the
October 6, 2017, incident. Tr. at 41.
The Individual testified that he does not dispute the Psychiatrist’s conclusion that he has an alcohol
use disorder. Tr. at 72, 148. The Individual testified that he met with an EAP Counselor for six
sessions of alcohol education. Tr. at 64. The EAP Counselor referred the Individual to the
Counselor for individual counseling, which the Individual began on a weekly basis, and he has
continued undergoing individual counseling for approximately a year.9 Tr. at 64-65. Through his
counseling, the Individual learned how “big of a problem” alcohol has been in his life, that he
7 In addition to the laboratory testing administered at the request of the Psychiatrist, the Individual has undergone a
series of tests designed to detect alcohol use on his part, each of which did not detect alcohol use on the Individual’s
part. These tests occurred on October 16, 2017, October 17, 2017, October 19, 2017, October 25, 2017, October 26,
2017, November 7, 2017, November 21, 2017, November 27, 2017, November 27, 2017, November 30, 2017,
December 4, 2017, December 13, 2017, December 16, 2017, December 18, 2017, January 8, 2018, January 16, 2018,
January 25, 2018, January 30, 2018, February 5, 2018, February 14, 2018, February 21, 2018, March 1, 2018, March
5, 2018, March 7, 2018, March 15, 2018, May 17, 2018, June 15, 2018, July 16, 2018, August 16, 2018, and September
20, 2018. Ex. H; Ex. I.
8 The Spouse testified that she believes that the Individual’s threats to commit suicide were not motivated by an
intention to harm himself, but rather “an intent to control the situation.” Tr. at 25.
9 The Individual noted that his counseling had initially focused on “unresolved trauma dealing with my father.” Tr. at
74.
- 7 -
cannot afford to use alcohol again, and that one drink could harm him. Tr. at 75. He stated that he
realized that: “I was an alcoholic, right, that I could not control my impulses with alcohol without
learning additional techniques and learning additional tools to move forward . . . I knew I had a
problem and I had to do something about it.” Tr. at 85, 148. He testified that he has “made a
commitment to abstain from alcohol permanently.” Tr. at 75, 135. The Individual testified that he
last used alcohol on October 6, 2017. Tr. at 67. The Individual testified that he has developed a
relapse prevention plan. Tr. at 129. The Individual identified his spouse, his children, his mother,
his friends, and his AA meetings as his support network. Tr. at 130-132. The Individual testified
that he is happier, now that he has been abstaining from alcohol. Tr. at 153.
In addition to acknowledging his Alcohol Use Disorder, the Individual acknowledged his past
actions and the role played by alcohol in those actions, and he has recognized the need to change.
Tr. at 80. The Individual admitted that, “I threatened to kill myself in front of my children, in front
of my wife.” Tr. at 78. The Individual further admitted there were multiple occasions on which
he would become intoxicated and threaten suicide, and on at least one other occasion besides
October 6, 2017, a weapon was involved. Tr. at 87. The Individual admitted spanking his daughter,
stating “I got angry, and I went and spanked [her], and I did not exercise the kind of control a parent
should exercise. I spanked her harder than I should have. I feel -- still feel really bad about it. It's
no wonder my kids said that they're afraid of me when I drank.” Tr. at 88. The Individual testified
that the child protection authorities substantiated the child abuse allegations against the Individual.
Tr. at 60. The Individual testified that the child protection authorities made several
recommendations, including counseling for the family members. Tr. at 60-61. The Individual and
his family complied with these recommendations. As a result, the child protection authorities have
closed the case. Tr. at 61-63.10 The Individual testified that his relationships with his spouse and
children have improved. Tr. at 132-134.
The Counselor, a licensed clinical mental health counselor, testified on the Individual’s behalf at
the hearing. Tr. at 98. The Counselor testified that he first met with the Individual on October 27,
2107. Tr. at 98. The Counselor testified that he diagnosed the Individual with “an unspecified
trauma-related disorder and an alcohol use disorder of moderate severity.”11 Tr. at 99.
Accordingly, he recommended that “the Individual undergo individual therapy for three to six
months of duration, to focus on resolving the childhood events and to deal with the substance use,
the alcohol use.” Tr. at 99. At the time of the hearing, the Individual had undergone a year of
therapy.12 Tr. at 102. The Counselor opined that the Individual’s treatment had been very
successful, and that the Individual had been able to maintain abstinence from alcohol. Tr. at 103.
The Counselor noted that the Individual had been very diligent in addressing his disorders and had
met all of his treatment goals. Tr. at 103, 105, 110-114. The Counselor believes that the Individual
10 This testimony is corroborated by Ex. C.
11 The Counselor testified that he agreed with the conclusions and recommendations in the Psychiatrist’s report. Tr. at
108.
12 The Counselor testified that the Individual had completed the Counselor’s treatment program, and had established a
relapse prevention program to help him avoid returning to drinking in the future. Tr. at 103–07. The Counselor
indicated that the program included daily reminders of abstinence from alcohol, establishing a network of at least two
(2) to three (3) supportive people the Individual could call if he experienced cravings for alcohol, and ongoing
attendance of AA meetings. Tr. at 106.
- 8 -
has a good support network consisting of his spouse and AA. Tr. at 106-107, 120. The Counselor
opined that the Individual’s risk of relapse after a year of sobriety and treatment is now very low,
because of the Individual’s demonstrated ability to maintain his sobriety for a year, and the
commitment and engagement in his treatment program that the Individual has demonstrated. Tr. at
108-109. He further opined that the Individual is now in sustained and complete remission. Tr. at
120-121.
The Psychiatrist observed the testimony of the other witnesses before he testified. He testified that
he “now believe[s] that [the Individual’s] alcohol use disorder is in complete, full remission and
that his prognosis for maintaining his sobriety is good.” Tr. at 161, 166. The Psychiatrist noted
that Individual has now shown that he can remain sober for a full year, which the Psychiatrist
opined was very important, and is therefore now in sustained remission. Tr. at 162, 167-18. The
Psychiatrist further noted that the Individual is in a good monitoring program. The monitoring
program results, along with his spouse’s testimony, raise the confidence level that the Individual
has not been using alcohol. Tr. at 163. The Individual’s acceptance of the fact that he has an
alcohol problem also provides additional confidence in his rehabilitation and reformation. Tr. at
163. The Psychiatrist was also encouraged by the Individual’s participation in AA. Tr. at 165.
Guideline G sets forth four conditions that can mitigate security concerns arising from alcohol use,
three of which are present in the instant case, specifically those mitigating conditions set forth at
§§ 23(b), (c), and (d). Section 23(b) provides that mitigation may be provided when: “the
individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of action
taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of . . .
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.” Section 23(c) provides that mitigation
may be provided when: “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.” Section 23(b) provides that mitigation may be provided when: “the individual has
successfully completed a treatment program along with any required aftercare, and has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of . . . abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.”
In the present case, the Individual has presented compelling evidence that he has gained the insight
and understanding to recognize that he has a problem with alcohol, the destructive role that alcohol
has had in his life, and his need to permanently abstain from alcohol use. The Individual has shown
that he has taken the appropriate actions to address and treat his Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate,
by obtaining alcohol education counseling, undergoing individual and family counseling, and
attending AA meetings. Most importantly, the Individual has shown that these actions have been
effective; as demonstrated by his abstinence from alcohol use for 13 months. These actions have
convinced the Counselor, and the Psychiatrist that the Individual has been reformed and
rehabilitated from his Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, and now has a high likelihood of remaining
abstinent. Accordingly, I find that the security concerns arising under Guideline G from the
Individual’s Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate have been resolved.
Guideline J Concerns
The Individual’s history of criminal activity and child abuse raise significant concerns about his
judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness. As an initial matter, I note that the criminal
- 9 -
activity exhibited by the Individual has clearly resulted from lapses in his impulse control, rather
than from dishonesty, unwillingness to follow rules, or moral turpitude. Each of the Individual’s
incidences of criminal activity have occurred when he was intoxicated. The testimony of the two
mental health professionals at the hearing have convinced me that those losses of impulse control
were caused by his alcohol intoxication, and were therefore symptomatic of his Alcohol Use
Disorder. The Counselor attributed the October 6, 2017, incident to the Individual’s intoxication,
and opined that it would not have happened without the Individual’s intoxication. Tr. at 115-119.
The Psychiatrist testified that, in his opinion,
The criminal issue . . . was very strongly connected to his intoxication. As I recall,
he had no other criminal history while sober, is probably the main issue. And it's
quite understandable that this impulsive loss of anger control would be related to
being intoxicated. And again, he didn't have any such issues when he was not
intoxicated. I think that's an important causal element, because if the criminal
issues were caused by his alcohol use disorder, which I would say it was, that's very
good for the prognosis of no further criminal problems, if he's not going to have
any further alcohol use problems, which I would tend to opine would occur.
Tr. at 166-167. Accordingly, I am convinced that as long as the Individual abstains from alcohol
use, the defects in judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness that were exhibited during
his criminal activity are highly unlikely to recur. Because I have found that the Individual has been
reformed or rehabilitated from his alcohol use disorder, and that it is unlikely that he will relapse,
I am now convinced that the Individual’s criminal activity is unlikely to recur. Guideline J at
§ 32(a). Accordingly, I find that the security concerns raised under Guideline J have been resolved.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G, and J.
After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner, I
find that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines G,
and J. 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. The National Nuclear Security
Administration 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