PSH-20-0070

*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: August 31, 2020 ) Case No.: PSH-20-0070
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 13, 2020
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Steven Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX 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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
In May 2020, the Individual’s clearance was suspended due to derogatory information about the
Individual concerning her alcohol use. The Local Security Office (LSO) began the present
administrative review proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing her
that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial
doubt regarding her eligibility to continue holding 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. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e) and (g), the
Individual presented only her own testimony. The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE
psychologist (the Psychologist) who had evaluated the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing, Case
No. PSH-20-0070 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 17 exhibits, marked as DOE
Exhibits 1 through 17 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted seven exhibits, marked
as Ind. Exs. 1 through 7.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
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
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security
clearance. That information raised security concerns under Guidelines E, 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).
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) provides that conduct exhibiting questionable judgment, lack of
candor, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, raises questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness and ability to protect classified information. The LSO
alleges that the Individual intentionally provided false information to the Psychologist concerning
her alcohol consumption. The LSO further alleges that she had a similar lack of candor in her
responses to two Letters of Interrogatory (LOI) that the LSO issued to her after being informed of
her alcohol-related arrests. Guideline E specifically states: “Any failure to provide truthful and
candid answers during the security clearance process is of particular concern” and further provides
that an individual’s “refusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to lawful questions of
investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection with a personnel
security or trustworthiness determination” “will normally result in an unfavorable . . . security
clearance action. . .” Guideline E at ¶ 15(b). Accordingly, I find that the LSO’s security concerns
under Guideline E are adequately justified.
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) provides: “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 the conditions cited
in Guideline G that could raise a disqualifying security concern are: alcohol-related incidents, at
or away from work, regardless of the frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the
individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder; habitual or binge consumption of alcohol
to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol
use disorder; an Alcohol Use Disorder diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health
professional; failure to follow treatment advice after diagnosis; and alcohol consumption that is not
in accordance with treatment recommendations after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder. Guideline
G at ¶ 22. The LSO alleges that the Individual was arrested for Public Intoxication (PI) after an
alcohol-related incident on a flight in 2019, arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2017,
and diagnosed by a Psychiatrist with “Alcohol Abuse and Intoxication-Uncomplicated” in 2016.
Ex. 9. The LSO further alleges that the Psychologist found evidence that the Individual used
alcohol to the extent that it impaired her judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness.
Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline G are justified.2
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) provides that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person's
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person's ability
2 The LSO also alleges that the Individual had informed a psychologist who had evaluated her in 2017 that she “had
past or current alcohol abuse dependency. . .” SSC at ¶ 6. However, the September 27, 2017, report of that
psychologist’s conclusions after evaluating the Individual on September 26, 2017, does not support this allegation.
DOE Ex. 10 at 1. Instead, this report states, in pertinent part: “[The Individual] reports no past or current recreational
drug use, and denies any past or current alcohol abuse, dependency, or treatment. Current alcohol consumption is
described as ‘social’ and ‘occasional,’ and [the Individual] reports going several years without any alcohol use.” Ex.
10 at 2.
3
or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Guideline J at ¶ 30. The conditions
that could raise a security concern and may be disqualifying under Guideline J include: “evidence
. . . of criminal conduct regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or
convicted;” and when an “individual is currently on parole or probation.” Guideline J at ¶ 31(b)
and (c). The LSO alleges that the Individual was arrested and charged with PI after engaging in
disruptive conduct on a domestic flight in 2019, and that the Individual was charged with DUI in
2017. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline J are justified.
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 entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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 her 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
The Individual was evaluated and treated by a psychiatrist (The Psychiatrist) from June 9, 2016,
until September 16, 2016, for four mental health issues that are not at issue in the present case. Ex.
9 at 1. However, the medical records supplied by the Psychiatrist indicate that the Individual
“admitted struggling with alcoholism.” DOE Ex. 9 at 2. These medical records further indicate that
the Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with “Alcohol abuse with intoxication uncomplicated.”
Ex. 9 at 3, 6.
On October 7, 2017, police arrested the Individual and charged her with DUI. DOE Ex. 4 at 1.
The LSO issued LOIs to the Individual requesting information concerning this arrest and the
Individual’s alcohol use. On December 4, 2018, the Individual submitted her responses to this
4
LOI. DOE Ex. 5 at 1. Interrogatory No. 23 asked the Individual: “Has your use of alcohol created
any problems in your life? If, so, please explain.” Despite her admission to the Psychiatrist that
she had struggled with alcohol, she responded by stating: “No, except for October 7, 2017.”3 DOE
Ex. 5 at 6.
On March 19, 2019, police arrested and charged the Individual with PI after an incident in which
she engaged in disruptive conduct during a flight after consuming alcohol. DOE Ex. 3 at 4, 9-11.
The Police Report for this arrest indicates that at least four individuals (including the Individual)
reported that she had consumed alcohol prior to this incident. DOE Ex. 3 at 9-5.
The March 19, 2019, arrest for PI led the LSO to issue a second series of LOI to the Individual.
The Individual responded to these LOIs on October 17, 2019. DOE Ex. 11 at 1. Interrogatory No.
1 asked the Individual: “Did you stop consuming alcohol or continue to consume alcohol after the
first incident in 2017? If you continued to consume, describe your alcohol use since that time;
include how much and how often you would typically drink, if you made any changes while on
pain medication, and under what conditions you would drive after consuming alcohol.” DOE
Ex. 11 at 1. The Individual responded by stating in pertinent part: “Yes, I have not consumed
alcohol since the 2017 incident.” DOE Ex. 11 at 1. The Individual went on to attribute her behavior
that led to the PI arrest to sleep deprivation and her prescription pain medication. DOE Ex. 11 at
1. She further noted: “My court case has been resolved as disorderly conduct, but makes no mention
of alcohol use.” DOE Ex. at 1.
After the Individual’s PI arrest, the LSO requested that the Individual undergo a psychological
evaluation. The Psychologist interviewed the Individual on December 6, 2019, and issued a report
of his findings on December 12, 2019, in which, he opined that the Individual “uses alcohol to the
extent that it impairs her judgement, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness.” DOE Ex. 7 at 3,
12-13. He further concluded that the Individual “is drinking significant amounts of alcohol which
has repeatedly caused her major problems but do not meet the criteria for a DSM-5 alcohol
diagnosis.” DOE Ex. 12 at 11. Noting that the Individual was not receiving treatment for her
drinking, or her “impulsive, controlling psychological conditions,” the Psychologist recommended
that the Individual abstain from alcohol for at least nine months, actively participate in Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings for one year, attend an intensive outpatient program (IOP), and obtain
individual counseling. DOE Ex. 7 at 13. The Psychologist also reported that the Individual had
repeatedly provided him with false information minimizing her alcohol consumption during his
December 6, 2019, interview of her. Ex. 7 at 7-9. For, example, during the interview, she had
initially informed the Psychologist that she had not consumed any alcohol since October 2017.
Ex. 7 at 7-8. However, when the Psychologist informed her that he was going to ask her to take a
blood test that would detect her consumption of alcohol during the previous three weeks, she
admitted consuming alcohol on the previous evening, and on a flight returning from Kentucky after
Thanksgiving. Ex. 7 at 7-8.
The Individual began attending an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) for her alcohol issues on
May 21, 2020. Ind. Ex. 6 at 1; Tr. at 52.
3 Interrogatory No. 22, asked: “Have you ever felt you may have an alcohol related problem or has anyone else
expressed that concern to you? If so, please explain.” The Individual responded “no.” Ex. 5 at 6.
5
On July 7, 2020, while she was attending this IOP, police arrested4 and charged the Individual with
her second DUI.5 DOE Ex. 16 at 1; Tr. at 51. Breath tests administered to the Individual by the
arresting officer indicated that her blood alcohol level was .184 and .116, respectively. DOE Ex.
16 at 2.
On October 12, 2020, the Individual was discharged from her IOP, after successfully completing
it. Ind. Ex. 6 at 1. Her discharge summary states:
[The Individual] initially struggled with abstinence as she faced family
relationships and a brief lack of self care resulting in a DUI. [The Individual]
accepted responsibility and moved forward to engage in the group process and
regular attendance of 12-step meetings. [The Individual] obtained a sponsor and
became a source of positive support for fellow group members. [The Individual]
demonstrated the changes necessary to successfully complete Intensive Outpatient
Treatment.
Ind. Ex. 6 at 1. The treatment summary further states that the Individual “had shown no evidence
of intoxication or withdrawal.” Ind. Ex. 6 at 2. The treatment summary concludes by stating: “[The
Individual’s prognosis is good contingent upon her continued participation in a 12-step program,
individual therapy, and medication management.” Ind. Ex. 6 at 2.
On the night before the hearing, the Individual submitted a “Clinical Records Review” prepared by
a non-treating-psychologist (the NTP) employed at the clinic at which the Individual has been
receiving psychiatric and counseling services. The NTP conducted a review of the Individual’s
clinical records at that clinic and summarized them in this document. Ind. Ex. 4 at 1.
The NTP states, in pertinent part:
[The Individual] appears to this reviewer to have been honest about alcohol
problems while engaged in the treatment episode at [the] Clinic ending in July
2018. She was more likely than not minimizing the extent of her alcohol use during
the interview with [the Psychologist]. Though other contributors may have been
present, alcohol has more likely than not played a significant role in legal issues
(i.e. DUI and Disorderly conduct). In 2020 she sought intensive treatment for
alcohol use and has complied with treatment recommendations of her IOP and
outpatient treatment team at [the] Clinic. She should continue to follow the
recommendations of her treatment team.
Ind. Ex. 4 at 2. The NTP further concluded that “Records from treatment episode that began in
2020 at [the] Clinic indicate that she is no longer deceptive regarding alcohol use.” Ind. Ex. 4 at 2.
The NTP concluded that:
4 This arrest occurred after the SSC was issued and approximately four months prior to the hearing.
5 The Individual testified at the hearing that she was sentenced for this DUI in October 2020. She testified that the
court placed several conditions on her, including complete abstinence from alcohol, random medical screenings for
alcohol use, and no possession or use of alcohol. Tr. at 54–55.
6
[The Individual] has been following a clinician driven treatment plan related to her
alcohol use and psychiatric diagnoses since May 2020. It is reasonable to expect
that if she continues to engage in treatment and/or support groups like AA she
should be able to avoid any recurrence of alcohol related difficulty. Should concern
regarding relapse persist, there are effective methods for assessing alcohol use, such
as those employed during [the Psychologist's] evaluation.
Ind. Ex. 4 at 3.
The Hearing
The Individual testified on her own behalf at the hearing.6 She began her testimony by explaining
that she had been injured in a severe automobile accident when she was sixteen. Tr. at 23. As a
result, she has had to manage severe pain since this accident. Tr. at 23-28. This severe pain has
often interfered with her ability to sleep. Tr. at 26. For most of her life, she abstained from alcohol
use. Tr. at 28. However, she began to use alcohol in 2012 or 2013. Tr. at 28. At some point, she
began to use alcohol as a sleep aid. Tr. at 29-30, 41-42.
Though counseling and AA, the Individual recognizes that she has an alcohol problem, and that
she needs to abstain from using alcohol. Tr. at 45, 57, 65-66, 86. The Individual testified that she
last consumed alcohol on July 7, 2020. Tr. at 75, 88. The Individual testified that she began her
IOP in May 2020, and had recently completed it. Tr. at 52, 88. The Individual feels that, since her
pain is under better control, she is now less likely to use alcohol. Tr. at 42-45. She admitted that
she had minimized her alcohol use to the Psychologist during her evaluation, but did so because
she did not recognize that she had an alcohol problem at that time. Tr. at 70-71. She acknowledged
that she continued drinking after attempting to stop when she was evaluated by the Psychologist.
Tr. at 77. She is now attending AA meetings three to four times a week. Tr. at 55, 57. She testified
that she can be trusted to provide accurate information about her alcohol use and treatment, because
she now recognizes that she has an alcohol problem. Tr. at 76.
The Individual testified about the incident that led to her PI arrest. She claimed that she had endured
an eleven hour flight under particularly difficult circumstances. Tr. at 50. By the time of the
incident, she had not slept for 72 hours. Tr. at 50. She was in pain, so she took a prescription
medication, Tramadol.7 Tr. at 50. The Individual testified that she was ashamed of her conduct
during this incident. Tr. at 50.
The Individual described her July 7, 2020, DUI arrest as devastating. Tr. at 58. The Individual
testified that she had pled guilty to the July 7, 2020, DUI and has been sentenced to four months of
probation. Tr. at 54. Per the court order, she is prohibited from possessing or using alcohol, and
is subject to random urinalysis tests for alcohol. Tr. at 55.
During cross-examination, the Individual was asked why she had denied consuming alcohol since
the October 7, 2017, incident in her October 17, 2019, answers to the second LOI. Tr. at 80. The
6 The Individual’s attorney asked for judicial notice of how the Individual’s anxiety ramped up during her testimony
as an example of her condition. Tr. at 56, 61. At times, she appeared unable to focus on the questions and, at times, her
attorney redirected her back to the topic at hand. Tr. at 69, 72–73.
7 Tramadol is a painkiller similar to opioid analgesics.
7
Individual responded by stating “I guess I was looking at it as overuse, and I – I did not intentionally
try to mislead anybody, but I see what you mean. I take responsibility.” Tr. at 80-81. When asked
if that LOI response was accurate or inaccurate, the Individual replied it “was an incomplete
response.” Tr. at 81. During re-direct examination, the Individual testified that when she had
denied consuming alcohol in response to questions from the LSO, she had interpreted the question
as asking whether she had abused alcohol during that time, rather than if she had consumed alcohol.
Tr. at 96.
During cross-examination by the DOE Counsel, the Individual also was asked why she had not
initially informed the Psychologist about consuming alcohol on the flight home from Kentucky
after Thanksgiving 2019. The Individual initially responded by stating “I don’t recall that at all.”
Tr. at 77. She then continued to state: “Thanksgiving I was in Kentucky with my daughters, and
I didn't drink at all when I was in Kentucky with my daughters, and I didn't drink on the flight back
with my daughters and Halloween.” Tr. at 77-78. The DOE Counsel directed the Individual’s
attention to the Psychologist’s Report, which indicated that she had admitted that she had consumed
alcohol during the flight home from Kentucky, and then asked her if she had used alcohol on the
plane back from Kentucky. Tr. at 78-9. The Individual responded by stating: “Sir, I don't recall,
but I -- you know, I could have, yes. I am saying that I didn't drink over Thanksgiving. I thought
that was the question. I'm sorry, I apologize. I could have.” Tr. at 78-79. She then admitted that
she had consumed alcohol on that flight. Tr. at 79.
The Psychologist testified that, while he did not diagnose the Individual with a formal DSM-5
alcohol use disorder after her 2019 evaluation, he would give such a diagnosis as of the hearing
because the Individual had been unable to abstain from alcohol, despite alcohol causing severe
adversity in her life. Tr. at 106–07, 115. He testified that the Individual told him she had not
consumed alcohol since her 2017 DUI and that she had denied consuming any alcohol on the flight
before the airline incident. Tr. at 110–11. He testified that after telling her she would be tested for
alcohol, she admitted to drinking the night before the evaluation, drinking with friends a few days
prior, and drinking on a flight home from Thanksgiving travels about a week prior. Tr. at 111–12.
Due to the Individual’s lack of candor during her evaluation and her difficulty giving concrete
answers about her alcohol use during the hearing, the Psychologist stated that he would have liked
to see nine months of abstinence backed up by laboratory testing in order to consider the Individual
rehabilitated. Tr. at 118. He did not believe that the Individual’s stated period of abstinence and
course of treatment up to the hearing date was sufficient to demonstrate rehabilitation. Tr. at 117.
He testified that the Individual’s multiple relapses indicated that she was not in control of her
alcohol consumption. Tr. at 118, 120. The Psychologist further testified that the Individual’s IOP
and amount of AA attendance were less than he would have recommended for the Individual’s
treatment, and that he was unable to evaluate the quality of the Individual’s IOP. Tr. at 115–17.
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline E
Guideline E provides that the following conditions (in relevant part) may mitigate Personal
Conduct security concerns: (1) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the
omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts; (2) the offense is so
8
minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such
unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; and (3) the individual has acknowledged the
behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate
the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(a),
(c), (d).
During the hearing, the Individual continued to exhibit a lack of candor. Whether this lack of candor
was willful or a product of confusion and anxiety, it underscores the LSO’s concerns, rather than
mitigating them. Regardless of her intent, the Individual’s word cannot be taken at face value,
casting doubt on her fitness to hold a clearance. As doubt must be resolved in favor of the national
security, I cannot find that the LSO’s Guideline E concerns are mitigated.
Because the Individual failed to made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts, it is clear that the conditions
set forth in ¶ 17(a) are not present. The Individual’s lack of candor has continued through several
steps of the present proceeding, including her answers to LOIs, her psychological interview, and at
her hearing. According, it is clear that that the conditions set forth in ¶ 17(c) are not present. The
Individual has somewhat acknowledged the behavior, has obtained counseling to change the
behavior, and has taken other positive steps (including utilizing more effective pain mitigation
strategies and obtaining treatment for her alcohol disorder) to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior; however,
the continuation of her lack of candor during the hearing raises the expectation that such behavior
is likely to recur. According, it is clear that that the conditions set forth in ¶ 17(d) are not present.
For these reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns raised by the
LSO under Guideline E.
Guideline G
Guideline G provides that security concerns arising from alcohol consumption can be mitigated
when “(a) the individual’s alcohol use was so infrequent or so long ago that it is unlikely to recur
and does not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment; (b) the individual
acknowledges his pattern of alcohol abuse, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this
problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence; (c) the individual has no history of relapse and is making satisfactory progress in
treatment or counseling; or (d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program and
has established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence.” Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 23(a), (b),(c), (d).
By her own admission, the Individual has only abstained from alcohol use for four months. She has
been able to abstain for short periods before, but has relapsed several times. Even after her alcohol
use put her career in jeopardy, she chose to consume alcohol and to drive under the influence of
alcohol. Even with the possibility of losing her job looming on the horizon, the Individual was
unable to abstain from alcohol for more than a few months at most. Though she may indeed remain
9
abstinent this time and follow through with her treatment goals, as of the hearing date, there remains
significant doubt about her ability to control her drinking.
Since the Individual’s problematic alcohol use has continued until as recently as July 7, 2020, she
has not shown that it occurred so long ago that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on her
current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. According, it is clear that that the conditions set
forth in ¶ 23(b) are not present. While the Individual acknowledges her pattern of alcohol abuse,
and has provided evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem (attending the IOP,
counseling, and AA), she has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence, since she had only been abstaining from alcohol use for a period of
four months at the time of the hearing. According, it is clear that that the conditions set forth in
¶ 23(b) are not present. The Individual is apparently making satisfactory progress in treatment or
counseling; however, she has a significant history of repeated relapses. Accordingly, it is clear that
the conditions set forth in ¶ 23(c) are not present. While the Individual has successfully completed
a treatment program and has, according the her counselor and the NTP, established a pattern of
abstinence, the Individual has only abstained from alcohol use for a maximum of four months, five
months short of the Psychologist’s treatment recommendation of nine months. According, it is
clear that that the conditions set forth in ¶ 23(d) are not present.
For these reasons, I find that the security concerns raised by the LSO under Guideline G have not
been mitigated and remain unresolved.
Guideline J
The Individual has a significant history of three alcohol-related arrests during the past four years.8
Until the Individual’s alcohol use is under control, she cannot be considered rehabilitated from her
criminal behavior because the two issues are inextricably linked. Accordingly, at this time, I find
that the security concerns raised by the LSO under Guideline J have not been mitigated and
therefore remain unresolved.
8 Guideline J provides that security concerns arising from criminal conduct can be mitigated when “(a) so much time
has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely
to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment; (b) the individual
was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are not prescribed, the pressures are no longer a
part of the individual’s life, and the abuse has since ended; (c) there is no reliable evidence to support that the individual
committed the offense; (d) and there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage
of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job
training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 32(a),(b),(c),(d).
10
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance under Guidelines E, G, and
J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has not succeeded in fully
resolving those concerns. Therefore, I cannot conclude that restoring DOE access authorization to
the Individual “will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with
the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should not restore
access authorization to the Individual at this time.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals