PSH-20-0057

*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: May 5, 2020 ) Case No.: PSH-20-0057
_________________________________________ )
Issued: January 7, 2021
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the Individual”)
to hold an access authorization under the United States 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.”1 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’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In July 2019, the Individual was subjected to a random breath alcohol test (BAT) as part
of his employment. Ex. 5. He tested positive, first at 0.034% and then, following a 15-minute
waiting period, at 0.029% in a confirmatory test.2 Id. at 5. Following a two-day suspension, the
Individual was again subjected to a BAT, which indicated a result of 0.017%. Ex. 9. The Individual
attributed this result to his use of mouthwash prior to undergoing the test. Ex. 11. Following these
events, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation by a DOE contractor psychologist
(Psychologist) in August 2019. Ex. 13. The Psychologist found “insufficient data to support the
presence of a diagnosable mental health disorder or condition,” but recommended that the
Individual remain abstinent for six months. Id. He further noted that the 0.017% BAT could not be
attributed to the use of mouthwash. Id. Subsequently, in December 2019, after learning that the
Individual reported attending outpatient counseling “for the purpose of improving emotional
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 Per the terms of his employment, a BAT result of 0.02% or higher is considered a “positive” test result. Ex. 4. As
such, I will refer to the 0.029% and the 0.034% BAT results as “positive” throughout the decision.
- 2 -
regulation within the context of substance use/abuse relapse prevention,” the Psychologist
diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use, Moderate, in early remission. Ex. 20. However, upon
learning that the Individual had subsequently consumed alcohol, he removed the “diagnostic
qualifier” of “in early remission.” See Exs. 15-16.
Due to unresolved security concerns stemming from the above information, the LSO informed the
Individual, in a Notification Letter dated April 2, 2020 (Notification Letter), that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility to hold a
security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. Ex. 2. 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 DOE Counsel
submitted 25 numbered exhibits (Exhibits 1-25) into the record and presented the testimony of
three witnesses, including the Psychologist. The Individual introduced one lettered exhibit (Exhibit
A) into the record and presented his own testimony. The exhibits will be cited in this Decision as
“Ex.” followed by the appropriate numeric designation. The hearing transcript in the case will be
cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
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) (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.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
- 3 -
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 E and Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Guideline
E concerns “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules or regulations.” Guideline E at ¶ 15. This conduct can call into
question an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive
information. Id. Guideline G relates to security risks arising from excessive alcohol consumption.
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.
In citing Guidelines E and G, the LSO relied upon: (1) the Individual’s positive BAT and the
subsequent BAT of 0.017%, along with the Psychologist’s opinion that the latter result could not
be attributed to the use of mouthwash; (2) the Individual’s return to alcohol consumption following
a statement to the Psychologist that he intended to remain abstinent from alcohol for the foreseeable
future; (3) the Psychologist’s December 2019 diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in
early remission, following the Individual’s report that he had enrolled in substance abuse
counseling; (4) the Psychologist’s determination that the “diagnostic qualifier of ‘in early
remission’” would be removed should the Individual return to consuming alcohol (5) the
Individual’s “inconsistent and contradictory accounts of his alcohol use” to his employer and the
Psychologist; (6) the Individual’s reports, in an Enhanced Subject Interview, that his wife
disapproved of his alcohol consumption, and it created “an issue” within their marriage; (7) the
Individual’s participation in substance abuse counseling; and (8) the Individual’s commitments to
abstain from alcohol consumption and his subsequent failure to maintain such commitments.
IV. Findings of Fact
As stated above, in July 2019, the Individual’s employer required him to undergo a random BAT.
Ex. 4. The Individual tested positive with a result of 0.034%. Ex. 5. Following a 15-minute waiting
period, the Individual’s BAT showed a result of 0.029%. Id. The Individual’s employer suspended
him for two days, and upon his return, again required him to undergo a BAT. Exs. 9, 12. The result
for this BAT was a 0.017%. Ex. 9. The Individual attributed this result to his use of mouthwash
earlier in the morning. Ex. 11.
In August 2019, the Psychologist conducted an evaluation of the Individual. Ex. 13. During the
evaluation, the Individual reported that he consumed approximately two or three beers per week,
and further noted that his wife disapproves of his alcohol use. Id. at 2. The Individual explained
that, prior to testing positive for alcohol, he consumed “two small bottles of Hobble Creek, a lightly
alcoholic beverage,” on an empty stomach, and went to sleep. Id. He awoke later the same day,
reported to work, and underwent the BAT. Id. The Psychologist noted that approximately eight to
nine hours elapsed between the Individual’s alcohol consumption and him reporting to work. Id.
The Psychologist’s report added that, two days later, after returning from the work suspension, the
Individual reported for another BAT, and it returned results of 0.017%, which the Individual
attributed to his use of mouthwash. Id. The Individual denied the consumption of any alcohol in
the 24 hours prior to the test. Id.
- 4 -
The Psychologist opined that the Individual “appeared to be honest and open,” and “candid”
regarding his alcohol consumption on the day of the positive BAT; yet, he simultaneously
expressed concern about the Individual’s veracity and whether the Individual “may have under-
reported his use of alcohol in terms of amount and frequency.” Id. at 1, 3. Initially, the report notes
that the Individual committed to “limit[ing] his alcohol consumption, and [e]nsur[ing] that he did
not consume alcohol within 12 hours of a scheduled shift.” Id. at 36. However, the report also notes
that the Individual “stated his intent to remain abstinent from alcohol for the foreseeable future.”
Id. at 39. Ultimately the Psychologist determined that “[n]othing in documentation indicated [the
Individual] has an alcohol use disorder.” Id. at 3. The Psychologist further reported that the
Individual expressed remorse and did not attempt to excuse his behavior. Id. The Psychologist
recommended abstinence for a period of at least six months. Id.
In early December 2019, a Personnel Security Officer (PSO) reported that the Individual came to
her office and provided her with documentation that, as of late July 2019, he had been receiving
treatment from a counselor for “substance use/relapse prevention.” Ex. 15. According to the PSO,
the Individual reported that he had become abstinent from alcohol, as “nothing good comes from
it.” Id. He additionally indicated that he had attended eight Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings.
Id.
After receiving this information, the Psychologist conducted a second evaluation in late December
2019, diagnosing the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in early remission. Ex. 20.
The report indicated that the Individual is “a self-described alcoholic” and had “been abstinent for
several weeks.” Id. He noted that “denial and poor judgment are integral parts of an alcohol use
disorder,” and he suggested that the Individual’s “clearance should be conditional upon [his]
commitment to remain alcohol abstinent.” Id.
In early January, the PSO requested to speak with the Individual. Ex. 15. She documented the phone
call and noted that the Individual had not yet received the report following the second psychological
evaluation. Id. According to the PSO’s notes, the Individual informed her that he had resumed
consuming alcohol but was not doing so during his scheduled work rotation. Id. She also noted that
the Individual had reported that the Psychologist was aware of his decision to begin consuming
alcohol again and did not express concern. Id. The Psychologist was later contacted via email and
replied that, if the Individual had “resumed drinking,” the “diagnostic qualifier” of “in early
remission” would no longer apply to his late December diagnosis. Ex. 16.
During the hearing, the Individual testified that he and his wife grew up in religious homes that did
not condone the use of alcohol. Tr. at 55. He explained that, although he did not share this belief,
his wife remained adamant that alcohol should not be brought into their home. Id. at 56. He
described that these differing views contributed to problems in their marriage; however, there were
never any instances of violence or abuse, alcohol related or otherwise. Id.
The Individual did not dispute that he consumed alcohol on the day he tested positive on the BAT,
nor does he dispute the test results. Id. at 77. With regard to the BAT following his suspension, the
Individual denied consuming any alcohol that day or the evening prior. Id. at 72. However, he
asserted that he used mouthwash upon his arrival to work, as was his normal routine. Id. at 62. He
does not recall the amount of time that elapsed between using the mouthwash and taking the BAT,
but he estimates that it was an approximately 15-minute drive to the testing facility, indicating that
- 5 -
there was at least a 15 minute time gap between using the mouthwash and undergoing the BAT.
Id. at 72.
In testifying as to his counseling sessions and AA attendance, the Individual explained that, upon
receiving a positive BAT, his employer presented him with a brochure for the Employee Assistance
Program (EAP).3 Id. at 67. He explained that, initially, he did not feel that he needed assistance,
but after considering it further, he thought: “I could actually use this because what I’d really like
to do is stop drinking altogether, and if I do this and if I learn a lot about alcoholism, maybe I can
even find a way to hate it as much as my wife does.” Id. He made clear that he had not been ordered
to engage in counseling or AA but did so on a voluntary basis. Id. at 65-66. The Individual testified
that he informed his counselor that he wanted to “learn about alcoholism, [and] the dangers that
come with it.” Id. at 65. He explained that, after he became educated, his “eyes got opened,” and
he chose to become involved in AA; however, he clarified that he has never considered himself to
be an alcoholic and never made such a statement to the Psychologist. Id. at 65, 69, 84. He noted
that he attended ten counseling sessions through the EAP and subsequently decided to attend an
additional ten sessions due to the stress he was feeling as a result of the impact the positive BAT
had on his life.4 Id. at 68, 75; see Ex. 14, Ex. A.
The Individual acknowledged that he informed the Psychologist in their August meeting that his
“goal would be to stop [consuming alcohol] altogether,” and additionally, he noted that he made
the determination on his own that he could consume alcohol again as long as it was not within 12
hours of him going on duty. Id. at 101. He clarified that although he began consuming alcohol
following the August 2019 evaluation, it was never to the level of intoxication. Id. at 93. The
Individual testified that it had been about a year since he had last consumed alcohol. Id. at 57, 59,
92, 99. He further stated that he does not believe he will resume consuming alcohol because
although it is a “nice to have;…it just doesn’t do a whole lot of good.” Id. at 70. The Individual
explained that, as a result of his positive BAT, he is ashamed of himself, and he intends to remain
abstinent from alcohol. Id. at 75.
The DOE presented the testimony of a breath alcohol technician and trainer (Technician). Id. at 15-
16. The Technician explained that the goal of the BAT is to obtain a “deep lung air sample” in
order to get an accurate reading, as opposed to capturing “residual mouth alcohol.”5 See id. at 20,
26. The Technician explained that alcohol resides at the base of a person’s lungs. Id. at 20. In
addressing the process of conducting BATs, the Technician explained that when a test subject’s
result as a 0.020% or higher, which is considered to be a positive result, the testing device instructs
that the test subject undergo a 15-minute waiting period before another screening confirmation test
is conducted. Id. at 21. This waiting period ensures that “if there is any residual alcohol, it has time
3 This statement is supported by the testimony of the PSO. Tr. at 42.
4 The Individual submitted a letter from his counselor attesting to their work together and the Individual’s
“commitment” and “tremendous drive.” Ex. A. The letter additionally states that the Individual “appears to be entering
‘sustained remission,’” and it generally discussed that “substance use disorder is a very common diagnosis.” Id.
However, the counselor does not provide a specific diagnosis for the Individual, nor does she explain any circumstances
leading to any such diagnosis. Id. As such, and given that I was not afforded the opportunity to question the counselor
as a witness during the hearing, I do not afford this exhibit much weight. Id.
5 The Technician testified that “residual mouth alcohol” could be attributable to breath spray, gum, candy, mints, or
other substances that may be present in the test subject’s mouth. Tr. at 27-28.
- 6 -
to dissipate,” ensuring that the test is only capturing a “deep lung sample.”6 Id. at 21. If, however,
a BAT result is below 0.020%, as it was in the Individual’s 0.017% BAT, following his suspension,
the machine does not perform the confirmation test, as the result does not meet the 0.020%
threshold. Id. at 24-26. The Technician clarified that in his experience, a result of 0.017% is
typically due to the test subject using “some sort of mouth rinse” before undergoing the test. Id. at
31.
The Psychologist testified that he had two concerns: the Individual’s alcohol use and his veracity.
Id. at 113. He felt that there was inconsistent information in the case, and he further articulated that,
although he did not necessarily believe the Individual was lying about his abstinence from alcohol
over the past year, based on his experience evaluating people with alcohol use disorders, he “would
have doubts about any individual making this kind of claim.” Id. at 113, 128. Although the
Psychologist did not explicitly explain the “inconsistent information” he was referring to, he
appears to be referencing the breaks in the Individual’s abstinence from alcohol. See Tr. at 110-
113. Specifically, although the Individual reported to the PSO that he had consumed alcohol
between his August and December evaluations, he reported to the Psychologist that he was “alcohol
abstinent” at that time. Id. at 110. The Psychologist acknowledged that he drew an “inference” that
the Individual had not consumed alcohol since their August meeting. Id. at 110-111.The
Psychologist additionally testified that, based upon his research, it was “very unlikely” that the
Individual’s 0.017% was attributable to mouthwash. Id. at 108. He recounted that his research
showed that after 15 to 20 minutes have elapsed, there is not enough residual alcohol in the body
to create a positive BAT. Id. at 108-109.
The Psychologist confirmed that he did not diagnose the Individual with an alcohol use disorder
following the August 2019 evaluation. Id. at 132. When asked why he would diagnose the
Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in Early Remission, after the Individual
completed an alcohol treatment program and began attending AA, the Psychologist cited the
Individual’s statement that “I’m seeking treatment. I’m going to AA meetings. I’m an alcoholic in
recovery.” The Psychologist then stated, “I sort of ha[d] to believe him.” Id. at 135. When I asked
the Psychologist if he could further enlighten me to why he changed his diagnosis, Psychologist
stated, “I’m not sure I can.” Id. The Psychologist acknowledged that the Individual’s drive to seek
more information with regard to his alcohol use was a positive plan of action; yet, he
simultaneously noted the “irony” of that very act being used to endanger his eligibility to hold a
clearance. Id. at 141-142.
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 has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns noted by the LSO
with regard to Guidelines E and G. I find that restoring the Individual’s DOE security clearance
will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national
6 The Technician testified that, in his experience, substances such as mouthwash, dissipate from a subject’s breath in
approximately five minutes. Tr. at 29.
- 7 -
interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). Therefore, I have determined that the Individual’s security
clearance should be restored. The specific findings that I make in support of this decision are
discussed below. Due to the interconnected nature of the Guideline E and Guideline G security
concerns, I will analyze them together.
Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired
condition, regardless of whether the Individual is a diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, or a
diagnosis by a duly qualified mental health provider of an alcohol use disorder, may raise a
disqualifying security concern. Guideline G at ¶ 22(b), (d). If an individual acknowledges his
pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome the problem,
and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations, he may be able to mitigate the security concern. Id.
¶ 23(b).
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and
ability to protect classified information. Of special interest is any failure to provide truthful and
candid answers during the security clearance process or any other failure to cooperate with the
security clearance process. See Guideline E at ¶ 15. Deliberately omitting, concealing, or falsifying
relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire can disqualify an individual from holding
access authorization. Id. at ¶ 16(a). Under Guideline E, conditions that may mitigate security
concerns include that “the information was unsubstantiated.” Guideline E at ¶ 17(f).
As I have noted previously, the LSO cited numerous security concerns. I will first address the
Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, and his subsequent decision to
remove the diagnostic qualifier of “in early remission,” as I find this to be the most troubling aspect
of this case. When the Individual first visited the Psychologist in August 2019, the Individual had
previously tested positive for alcohol while on duty; yet despite this alcohol related incident, the
Psychologist attributed it to “circumstantial factors, lack of time awareness, and poor judgment,”
and he found no “no diagnosable mental health disorder or condition.” Ex. 13. He did not
recommend treatment, alcohol education, or AA attendance, but he did suggest that the Individual
abstain from alcohol for six months. Id.
After being provided with information from his employer about EAP, the Individual took it upon
himself to seek out education about alcohol use and the dangers that can come from it. He
subsequently returned to the Psychologist for evaluation, who then, despite there being no further
incidents or problems resulting from alcohol use, determined that that Individual had an alcohol
use disorder because he “sort of ha[d] to believe” the Individual.7 Tr. at 135. When I asked him to
help me understand this turn of events, the Psychologist stated that he could not. Id. at 141. I cannot
find that this diagnosis is supported or credible, based upon the Psychologist’s hearing testimony.
I also note, in this regard, that there was no evidence of any intervening problematic event related
to alcohol.
7 Although the Psychologist claims that the Individual described himself as an alcoholic, the Individual claims that he
has never described himself as such, and given that the Psychologist acknowledged that there were other possible
miscommunications in the December 2019 evaluation, I find the Individual’s testimony to be credible. Tr. at 69, 110,
141.
- 8 -
In examining the BAT tests, I initially note that the BAT following the suspension was not a
“positive” test, and there is credible evidence within the record that it is unlikely that this test result
could be attributable to the Individual’s consumption of alcohol. The DOE’s own BAT technician
testified that he has never seen such a result arise from alcohol consumption. The Individual stated
that he used mouthwash prior to the 0.017% BAT, and the Technician testified that such a result is
likely attributed to a mouth rinse. Id. at 31. To the extent that the Psychologist disagrees, I note that
he concedes that he is not a physician or BAT technician. Tr. at 31, 118. Turning to the positive
BATs, the Individual does not deny that he consumed alcohol prior to his shift, nor does he attempt
to make excuses for his behavior. He accepts full responsibility and openly expresses shame for his
choices and actions. Since this time, he has voluntarily completed twenty counseling sessions and
began attending AA. Additionally, he has made the decision to abstain from alcohol and has been
abstinent for approximately one year. I can find no credible information in the record to make me
doubt the Individual’s claims of abstinence.8 See Guideline G at ¶ 23(b).
I find the remaining security concerns arising from the Individual’s use of alcohol to be mitigated.
Insofar as the LSO cited the Individual’s inconsistent and contradictory accounts of his alcohol
usage, the Psychologist recognizes that he made assumptions and inferences based upon his
conversation with the Individual but did not confirm the information. Guideline E at ¶ 17(f). As far
as the security concerns arising from the Individual’s commitment to abstaining from alcohol
during his August 2019 psychological evaluation, the Psychologist’s report of this commitment
appears to be inconsistent. Id. Initially, the report notes that the Individual committed to “limit[ing]
his alcohol consumption, and [e]nsur[ing] that he did not consume alcohol within 12 hours of a
scheduled shift.” Later, the report cites that the Individual “stated his intent to remain abstinent
from alcohol for the foreseeable future.” The Individual indicated that his “goal” was to cease
consumption of alcohol. Although the Psychologist did recommend abstinence from alcohol for
six months, I note that he did not diagnose the Individual with any disorder stemming from alcohol
usage. Ultimately, I find these security concerns to be mitigated, as the Individual has now been
abstinent from alcohol for approximately one year, with no evidence of relapse, has completed
alcohol counseling, attended AA, and testified that he has no intention of consuming alcohol in the
future. Guideline G at ¶ 23(b).
Finally, insofar as the LSO cites the Individual’s wife’s disapproval of his use of alcohol, the record
indicates that the Individual’s alcohol use has not caused financial problems or violence within the
marriage. It appears that the marital problems associated with the Individual’s alcohol use stem
solely from the wife’s personal opinions of alcohol being in conflict with those of the Individual. I
cannot find that a mere disagreement between a married couple rises to the level of creating a
security concern.
Based upon the evidence in the record before me at this time, I find that the Individual has
adequately established that restoring his security clearance will not endanger the common defense
and security, and that doing so is clearly consistent with the national interest. Thus, I conclude that
the Individual has sufficiently resolved the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter
with respect to Guideline E and Guideline G.
8 To the extent that the Psychologist doubts the Individual veracity in this regard, he provides no explanation
specifically pertaining to the Individual and his personal experience with alcohol.
- 9 -
VI. Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I have found that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns associated with Guideline E and Guideline G. Accordingly, I have determined
that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored. The parties may seek review of this
Decision by an Appeal Panel under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals