PSH-18-0088

*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: December 11, 2018 ) Case No.: PSH-18-0088
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: February 26, 2019
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXX (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, I conclude that the
Individual’s security clearance should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual recognized that he had a serious alcohol problem, and admitted himself to an in-
patient treatment facility from February 16, 2018, until March 15, 2018. Ex. 16 at 6. After the
Local Security Office (LSO) was informed of this treatment, it conducted a Personnel Security
Interview (PSI) of the Individual on April 3, 2018. Ex. 11 at 1. A DOE Psychologist (the
Psychologist) conducted a forensic psychological evaluation of the Individual on June 20, 2018, at
the LSO’s request. Ex. 12 at 3. On June 28, 2018, the Psychologist issued a report in which she
concluded that the Individual meets the criteria set forth in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
the American Psychiatric Association, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD),
Severe, and Alcohol-Induced Depressive Disorder (rule out Major Depressive Disorder,
Recurrent). Ex. 12 at 1, 11, 13. The Psychologist opined that these conditions can impair the
Individual’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness, and that the Individual had not shown that
he was sufficiently reformed or rehabilitated. Ex. 12 at 13-14. Accordingly, 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.
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 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 April 13, 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 friend, and the Psychologist. See Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-18-0088 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 13 exhibits,
marked as Exhibits 1 through 13 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted two
exhibits, marked as Exhibits A and B.
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 I 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 alleges that the Individual had been diagnosed
by the Psychologist with AUD, Severe under the DSM-5, and had admitted himself into an in-
patient treatment program in order to address his AUD. 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 “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental
health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social
worker) of alcohol use disorder.” Guideline G at ¶ 22(d). Accordingly, these allegations adequately
justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
Under Guideline I, Psychological Conditions, the LSO alleges that the Psychologist has diagnosed
the Individual with AUD, Severe, and Alcohol-Induced Depressive Disorder (rule out Major
Depressive Disorder, Recurrent) under DSM-5. Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain emotional,
mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Guideline
I at ¶ 28. Guideline I further provides that “an opinion by a duly qualified mental health
professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness” may raise a security concern and be disqualifying. Guideline I at ¶ 28(b).
Accordingly, these allegations adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I.
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
- 3 -
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. Ex. A at Paragraph IV.B.
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
The facts in this case are not in dispute. The Individual recognized that he had a serious alcohol
problem and discontinued using alcohol on February 11, 2018. Ex. 11 at 6, 8, 10. He then consulted
with a mental health professional, and on her advice, voluntarily entered an inpatient treatment
facility on February 16, 2018, for a 30 day treatment program. Ex. 11 at 5-7. On April 3, 2018,
approximately two weeks after the Individual successfully completed this treatment program, the
LSO conducted a PSI of the Individual. During the PSI, the Individual admitted an extensive
history of problematic alcohol use, and reported his efforts to address his AUD, which included his
inpatient treatment program, participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), and undergoing
individual counseling. Ex. 11 at 5-8, 18-19. The Individual repeatedly described himself as an
“alcoholic” during the PSI, and he expressed an intention to permanently abstain from alcohol use.
Ex. 11 at 9, 11, 19, 23, 47.
At the LSO’s request, the Psychologist conducted a forensic psychological evaluation of the
Individual on June 20, 2018, and issued her Psychological Assessment of the Individual on June
28, 201. Ex. 12 at 1-2. In her Psychological Assessment, she diagnosed the Individual with AUD,
Severe, noting that the Individual met all eleven of the criteria for AUD. Ex. 12 at 10, 12. The
Psychologist also diagnosed the Individual with “Alcohol-Induced Depressive Disorder (rule out
Major Depressive Disorder, Recurrent).” Ex. 12 at 12. The Psychologist further opined that while
the Individual was not yet not rehabilitated from these two conditions, he had made a “very good
start on rehabilitation,” noting that the Individual self-referred for treatment, wholeheartedly
embraced abstinence, had become involved in AA, had initiated psychotherapy, and intends to
permanently abstain from alcohol use. Ex. 12 at 12. However, the Psychologist further opined:
Alcohol Use Disorders are notorious for overriding good intentions, however. By
their very nature, AUD's recur. The first twelve months of recovery are a period of
particularly high risk. Until he has completed an extended period of abstinence,
along with therapy to support alcohol recovery and address depressive
vulnerability, he will be at risk for relapse, which can jeopardize judgment and
reliability.
- 4 -
Ex. 12 at 12.
During his hearing testimony, the Individual candidly admitted that he has relapsed on three recent
occasions: In October 2018, November 2018, and December 2018. Tr. at 26-28. The Individual
testified that his new sober date is now December 25, 2018, one month prior to the hearing. Tr. at
26.
V. ANALYSIS
At the hearing, the Individual 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. Moreover, the Individual has
taken the appropriate actions to address his AUD, entering into and completing an inpatient
treatment program, undergoing individual counseling, and becoming involved in AA. However,
during his hearing testimony, the Individual admitted that he relapsed in October 2018, November
2018, and December 2018. Tr. at 26-28. He stated that his new sober date is now December 25,
2018, one month prior to the hearing. Tr. at 26.
The Psychologist observed the testimony of the other two witnesses prior to providing her own
testimony. She testified that because of his three recent relapses, the Individual’s AUD is no longer
in remission since the Individual would need to go three months without meeting any of the AUD
criteria to be in early remission. Tr. at 51. She further opined that the Individual continued to meet
four or five of the AUD criteria. Tr. at 52. Accordingly, she concluded that the individual has not
been rehabilitated from his AUD and that his AUD may still negatively affect his judgment and
reliability. Tr. at 52-54.
While the Individual has demonstrated remarkable forthrightness and insight during this
proceeding, his three recent relapse episodes demonstrate the potential danger of further relapses,
which could be expected to negatively affect his judgment and reliability. Not enough time has
passed since his last use of alcohol to conclude that he is able to maintain his abstinence and that
his treatment programs have been sufficiently effective to ensure that his judgment and reliability
will not continue to be affected by his AUD. Since the Individual has not shown that his AUD and
Alcohol-Induced Depressive Disorder have been in remission for a sufficiently long period of time
to fully mitigate the security concerns that have been raised, I conclude that the security concerns
raised under Guidelines G and I have not been resolved.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and I. After
considering all of the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a common sense manner, I find
that the Individual has not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines G,
and I. Accordingly, the Individual has not 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 not be restored. The Individual may seek
review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
- 5 -
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals