PSH-21-0024

*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: March 15, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0024
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 27, 2021
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
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 security
clearance should not be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. The Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) on
September 26, 2016. Exhibit (Ex.) 8 at 34. The Individual disclosed on the QNSP that he
voluntarily sought treatment for alcohol use in 2013; however, he failed to disclose his
participation in additional alcohol treatment in 2014. Ex. 8 at 29–30; Ex. 9 at 77–78. Furthermore,
the Individual certified on his QNSP that in the previous seven years he had never illegally used
drugs or controlled substances. Ex. 8 at 28. During an August 2018 Enhanced Substance Interview
(ESI), he again denied the use of illegal drugs. Ex. 9 at 56. However, during an April 2019 DOE
psychological evaluation he admitted to using marijuana daily in 2011, using heroin daily in 2013,
and admitted to previous methamphetamine use at age 18. Ex. 6 at 4, 6. Also, information obtained
by the local security office (LSO) during the investigation indicated that the Individual used
methamphetamine in 2013. Ex. 3 at 1.
1 The regulations define access authorization 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). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
The Individual also certified on the QNSP that he never voluntarily sought counseling or treatment
for use of drugs or a controlled substance. Ex. 8 at 28. However, the (LSO) obtained treatment
information reflecting that the Individual had received inpatient treatment for heroin use in 2013
and treatment for polysubstance dependency in 2014. Ex. 3 at 1; Ex. 9 at 77.
In April 2019, a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview
(CI) of the Individual. Ex. 6. Following the CI, the DOE Psychologist issued a psychological report
(Report) in which she opined that the Individual has been heavily consuming alcohol and his
alcohol consumption would impair his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Id. at 8.
The LSO informed the Individual, in a letter dated April 16, 2020 (Notification Letter), that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility
to hold a security clearance.2 In an attachment to the letter (Summary of Security Concerns), the
LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E and
Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me
as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. The LSO submitted nine numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–9) into the record, and presented the
testimony of the DOE psychologist at the hearing. The Individual submitted eight exhibits (Ex. A
through H) into the record, and presented the testimony of four witnesses, including his own
testimony.
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. The LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as a
basis for denying the Individual a security clearance. Ex. 1 at 1. “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 or
sensitive information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. “Of special interest is any failure to
cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security investigative or
adjudicative processes.” Id. In citing Guideline E, the LSO relied upon the following information:
in September 2016, the Individual submitted a QNSP certifying that he had not used illegal drugs
or controlled substances in the past seven years, and he also denied during an August 2018 ESI
having used illegal drugs during; however, treatment records obtained by the LSO and the DOE
Psychologist’s Report reflected that the Individual admitted that he used marijuana in 2011 and
2013, he used methamphetamine in 2013, and he used heroin daily in 2013. Ex. 1 at 2. The LSO
further cited that the Individual certified on the QNSP that he never voluntarily sought counseling
or treatment as a result of his use of a drug or controlled substance; however, he received inpatient
treatment from May 2014 to June 2014 for Polysubstance Abuse Dependency, and from January
2014 to March 2014 for Heroin Abuse. Ex. 1 at 1. Additionally, the LSO relied upon the
Individual’s omission on the QNSP regarding his additional alcohol treatment from June 29, 2014
2 The transcript erroneously states that the date was March 11, 2021. Tr. at 5.
- 3 -
to July 12, 2014, and his failure to disclose on the QNSP that he was readmitted into the same
inpatient treatment program for alcohol and drug use from August 2014 to September 2014. Id.
The above information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline E.
The LSO also cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as a basis
for denying the Individual a security clearance. Ex. 1 at 2. 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
Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual has been
heavily consuming alcohol without evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that his alcohol
consumption would impair his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Ex. 1 at 2. The LSO also
cited to the Individual’s admissions during an August 2018 ESI that he drank a pint of vodka daily
from late 2011 to 2012; that he would consume alcohol until he passed out; and that in April 2013,
he was consuming alcohol heavily, drinking a fifth of vodka daily. Id. at 3.
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) (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.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual failed to disclose on his September 2016 QNSP that he participated in additional
alcohol treatment in 2014, and he did not disclose that he used heroin, marijuana, and
methamphetamine illegally within the previous seven years. Ex. 8 at 28–30, 34. In addition, he
certified on the QNSP that he never voluntarily sought counseling or treatment as a result of his
use of a drug or controlled substance. Ex. 8 at 28. During an August 2018 Enhanced Substance
Interview, he also denied using illegal drugs. Ex. 9 at 56.
- 4 -
Information in the record indicates that the LSO obtained treatment records revealing that the
Individual had previously participated in a drug treatment program. Ex. 3 at 1. Additionally, an
OPM investigator interviewed the clinical director (Director) of a different inpatient program in
September 2018, and the Director verified the Individual’s participation in alcohol and substance
use treatment from January 2014 through March 2014, and confirmed his readmission into the
same program in June 2014 for additional treatment. Ex. Ex. 9 at 77–78. The Director confirmed
that the Individual completed treatment on July 13, 2014, and followed all prescribed treatments
during that time. Id. at 78.
The DOE Psychologist conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the Individual on April 2, 2019. Ex.
6 at 3. During the CI, the Individual admitted that his alcohol consumption increased in 2011 to
approximately one pint of vodka daily, and he started using marijuana daily in 2011. Id. at 4. He
also admitted to using three to four grams of heroin daily during 2013. Id. Additionally, he
disclosed past methamphetamine use. Id. at 6. He told the DOE Psychologist that he admitted
himself into an inpatient treatment program (Inpatient Program) in May 2014, left against medical
advice on June 4, 2014, but returned later that month, and completed the program on July 13, 2014.
Id. at 4–5. Subsequently, he participated in aftercare weekly for three months, and maintained
abstinence for three years until August 2017 when he resumed drinking alcohol. Id. at 5.
The DOE Psychologist ordered a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test for the Individual as part of the
CI. Id. at 6. The Individual’s PEth test was positive at a level of 609 ng/mL. Id. The physician who
interpreted the PEth results indicated that a positive PEth test at 609 ng/mL is consistent with
regular, heavy consumption of alcohol on an ongoing and chronic basis, specifically at five or
more alcoholic drinks per day. Id. at 6–7.
On April 13, 2019, the DOE Psychologist issued her report (Report) in which she concluded that
the Individual had been heavily and likely frequently consuming alcohol, and this consumption
would impair his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Id. at 8. The DOE Psychologist
recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation by abstaining from
alcohol for a minimum of nine months, have PEth tests every two months, complete an IOP, and
attend an aftercare program. Id.
The Individual submitted a written statement responding to the allegations in the Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC). Ex. A. He asserted that his failure to disclose his previous heroin use
was mainly due to his concerns of perceived negative stigma and his feelings of shame regarding
his past drug use. Ex. A at 2–3, 5 He also believed that if the DOE learned that he had injected
heroin, “they will never give me a clearance.” Ex. A at 2–3, 5. He included character references
from his former supervisor, current supervisor, and three colleagues. Id. at 7–9; Ex. F; Ex. H, Ex.
G.3 All of his character references attested to the Individual’s dependability and reliability in his
work performance. Ex. A at 7–9; Ex. F, Ex. H. Additionally, the Individual submitted a letter from
his IOP counselor dated July 25, 2020, which verified completion of his IOP program. Ex. B. He
also submitted three negative PEth tests from August 2019, September 2019, and July 2020. Exs.
C, D, and E.
3 Exhibit G is a duplicate of the same letter submitted from the Individual’s colleague in Exhibit A at 9.
- 5 -
V. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual’s parents testified on his behalf. They stated that they see the Individual daily, and
that he has been living with them for the past five years. Tr. at 12, 33. They testified that several
years ago, the Individual voluntarily disclosed to them that he needed help with his alcohol
problem, and requested their assistance in helping him find a treatment program. Id. at 13–15, 23–
24, 35–36. As a result, they assisted him in enrolling in an inpatient treatment program (Inpatient
Program). Id. at 15–16, 24, 36. The Individual’s mother testified that the Individual enrolled in the
Inpatient Program in approximately 2013. Id. at 14. She recalled that while in treatment, there was
a point in time where he left the program, but ultimately returned and completed it. Id. at 16–17.
The Individual’s mother also testified that although she never saw him use illegal drugs, the
Individual told her that he had previously used heroin. Id. at 17. She asserted that per her
observations, the Individual’s primary problem has been alcohol. Id. at 18.
The Individual’s mother stated that she has not seen the Individual consume alcohol since he
completed the Inpatient Program in approximately 2014, nor has she had any indications that he
consumed alcohol since that time. Id. at 18–20. She testified that she and the Individual’s father
have chosen not to keep alcohol in the house in order to support the Individual in his sobriety. Id.
at 18. However, she thinks that the Individual probably has “slipped up once in a while and had
some alcohol.” She noted that he has told her that he has had cravings for alcohol and indicated to
her that it has been difficult dealing with those cravings. Id. at 28–29. She stated that the Individual
has told her that his future intentions are to not consume alcohol. Id. at 20–21. She also stated that
since the Individual completed the Inpatient Program, she has observed several positive changes.
He is continuing his attendance at AA meetings, he has increased his responsibility and stability,
he takes good care of his son, he is more organized, and he is taking better care of his physical
health. Id. at 21–22, 27–28.
The Individual’s father testified that he has never observed the Individual consume alcohol, and
asserted that he and the Individual’s mother do not have alcohol in the house. Id. at 38–39. He
stated he believes the Individual’s future plan with alcohol is total abstinence. Id. at 39. The
Individual’s father stated that as far as he knows, the Individual has been abstinent since he
completed the Inpatient Program, although the Individual has mentioned to him that he does have
cravings for alcohol. Id. at 45.
The Individual’s parents both testified that they find the Individual to be trustworthy and reliable.
Id. at 24–25, 41. They asserted that the Individual has never done anything dishonest as an adult,
that he has not hidden anything from them, and that they trust him to the point that he has access
to their finances. Id. at 24–25, 41. They asserted that he is reliable in that he follows through on
all tasks that they ask him to do, that he is reliable in his responsibilities with his son, and that he
has maintained his job successfully for several years. Id. at 25, 41–42.
The Individual did not dispute the allegations contained in the Summary of Security Concerns
(SSC). He indicated that heroin was the main drug he used, which was in approximately 2011 until
he briefly entered a treatment program in 2013. Id. at 49; Ex. 3 at 1. He also admitted that he
previously used marijuana, and he had briefly tried methamphetamine prior to the time period that
he used heroin. Id. at 49–50. He asserted that he has not used heroin, marijuana, or
methamphetamine since he completed the Inpatient Program in 2014. Id. at 49–50. The Individual
admitted that he intentionally did not disclose his previous heroin use and his previous
- 6 -
participation in drug treatment on his QNSP. Id. at 97. He explained that he was not honest because
he had a lot of shame and guilt regarding his heroin use and its negative stigma. Id. at 66-67, 98;
Ex. A at 2–3. He stated that at the time that he completed the QNSP, he was thinking, “[O]h God,
they’re going to see that I’m a heroin addict and that’s it….[t]hey’re never going to hire a heroin
addict.” Id. at 98; see also Ex. A at 2. He admitted to also being dishonest in his nondisclosure of
his previous use of marijuana and other drugs. Id. at 67–68. He asserted that he was not sure why
he did not disclose it, however, he stated that his thought process might have been, “If I’m going
to lie about one, might as well just throw them all in there.” Id. The Individual admitted that he
demonstrated “extremely poor judgment” in choosing not to disclose his past drug use, and
indicated that he wished he had been more honest concerning this issue. Id. at 67. However, he
also admitted that he did not disclose his heroin drug use until the DOE Psychologist informed
him that there were records that indicated he previously used heroin. Id. at 65. Further, he admitted
that if the DOE Psychologist had not told him about this information contained in the record, he
would “probably not” have disclosed his past heroin use. Id. at 65–66.
The Individual asserted that he did not intentionally fail to disclose his additional alcohol and drug
treatment at the Inpatient Program in 2014. Id. at 58–59. He noted that the SSC contains
inconsistent dates regarding his alleged nondisclosure of additional treatment in the Inpatient
Program. Id. at 52; Ex. 1 at 1. The Individual clarified that he initially attended a different treatment
program, but because it was a fairly involved program, he could not complete it. Id. at 49, 53.
Subsequently, in January 2014, he admitted himself into the Inpatient Program where he was in
treatment through July 2014. Id. at 53; see Ex. 6 at 4–5. During the time he was at the Inpatient
Program, there was a period of approximately one month when he left treatment, but then he
returned and was readmitted into the same Inpatient Program later in 2014. Id. He explained that
since he stated on the QNSP that he had attended treatment at both the Initial Program and the
Inpatient Program, he believed that he was not dishonest, nor had he attempted to hide his treatment
history. Id. at 59. However, he admitted that he had represented on his QNSP that he participated
in those programs for treatment of alcohol use only, even though he also participated in those
programs to treat drug use. Id. at 59–61. He admitted that this omission was due to the stigma and
shame he felt regarding heroin use. Id. at 60.
The Individual also testified that after he met with the DOE Psychologist, he subsequently attended
an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) where he completed 20 hours of treatment that he began in
September 2019. Id. at 69,87; Ex. B. He stated that the IOP program was very beneficial to him
because it helped him address the difficulties he has regarding his feelings of shame and negative
stigma regarding his past heroin use. Id. at 69–70. He asserted that he learned helpful lessons from
his IOP counselor. Id. at 69–70, 84, 88. His counselor worked with him to reframe his feelings of
shame around his heroin use, and explained to him that he should be proud that he was able to stop
using heroin. Id. at 88. Moreover, the Individual asserted that the reason he returned to
participating in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) was at the suggestion of his counselor, who
discussed with him the benefits of AA and its importance in assisting him with maintaining his
sobriety. Id. at 83–84.
The Individual asserted that he completely abstained from alcohol from March 2019 to June 2020,
and regularly attended AA meetings during that time period. Id. at 77. His testimony was supported
by negative PEth test results from August 9, 2019; September 20, 2019; and July 6, 2020. Id. at
81; Ex. C; Ex. D; Ex. E. However, the Individual admitted that in approximately June or July 2020,
he relapsed by returning to alcohol consumption. Id. at 78-79, 82. He asserted that the impetus for
- 7 -
his relapse occurred during COVID-19, when he experienced significant stress due to being
unemployed, having financial difficulties, lacking social support, and being unable to attend live
AA meetings due to COVID-19. Id. at 77–78, 80. He stated that he had tried to attend online AA
meetings, but indicated that the online AA meetings did not provide him with the same benefits he
gained from live AA meetings. Id. at 78, 83.
The Individual also disclosed that from the date that he gave up his sobriety until his employment
resumed in July 2021, he engaged in heavy alcohol consumption. Id. at 79. He stated that he was
able to drink alcohol undetected by his parents by bringing the alcohol upstairs to his room, which
was in a different part of the house. Id. at 72–73. He also admitted that he did not inform his
counselor that he had started consuming alcohol again when he met with his counselor to obtain a
letter of reference from him regarding his sobriety treatment. Id. at 90–91; Ex. B. The Individual
further admitted at the hearing that he last used alcohol 46 days prior thereto. Id. at 77. At the
hearing, he submitted the results of a PEth test on April 23, 2021, which was positive at a level of
178 ng/mL. Id. at 102-03; Ex. I.4
The Individual admitted that he is an alcoholic, and acknowledged that he cannot safely consume
alcohol. Tr. at 114. He stated that he has resumed attending live AA meetings, and some NA
meetings, and his first meeting was just over one month prior to the hearing. Id. at 85. 91 He
asserted that he currently tries to work the first three steps of AA daily, he reads the “Big Book,”5
and he is also seeking an AA sponsor. Id. at 85–86. However, he admitted that currently, he is not
seeking out additional, formal treatment or counseling because he believes that AA participation
is sufficient to keep him accountable concerning his sobriety. Id. at 93–94.
The DOE Psychologist testified after observing the hearing and listening to the testimony of the
witnesses, including the Individual. She opined that based on the additional evidence presented at
the hearing, the Individual meets the criteria for a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, moderate. Id.
at 123. She did commend the Individual for being forthcoming about his alcohol use at the hearing,
and she credited him for pursuing and attending AA. Id. at 126, 128–29. She also stated that the
Individual is “clearly committed and wants to…remain abstinent” and was “definitely on the right
track” within the prior 46 days. Id. at 128–29. However, the DOE Psychologist opined that while
it is a positive step that the Individual is participating in AA, it is “not sufficient given the degree
of his alcohol problems.” Id. at 125. She testified that her current recommendations for the
Individual are “no less than 12 months of documented abstinence,… [and] in addition to the
outpatient program, [the Individual] would need to demonstrate …participation in …an aftercare
program…[t]hat’s typically connected with an intensive outpatient program.” Id. at 124. The DOE
Psychologist explained the importance for the Individual to attend formalized treatment because it
teaches adaptive coping and tools to identify triggers, provides a social component with
accountability, and notably, is facilitated by a professional. Id. at 125. She stated that she is also
concerned about the Individual’s secrecy of consuming alcohol in his room and not disclosing it
to his parents who have been very supportive and understanding, and she concluded that the
Individual’s support system is not adequate for his recovery. Id. at 127–28. She concluded, “I am
4 The PEth test documentation stated, “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to
heavy ethanol consumption. However, the Center for Substance Abuse Treatment …advises caution in interpretation
…of biomarkers alone to assess alcohol use. Results should be interpreted in the context of all available clinical and
behavioral information.” Ex. I.
5 The “Big Book” is a basic text of AA, and is considered integral to the AA program.
- 8 -
convinced he needs more formal treatment in addition to his continued participation in AA. Id. at
127. Finally, the DOE Psychologist opined that there is currently not adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 129.
VI. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
The Individual’s omissions regarding his past drug use and his previous participation in a
substance abuse treatment program raise security concerns under Guideline E. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (b). An individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline E, in
relevant part, if:
(a) the individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(c) the offense is so 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;
(d) 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
Id. at ¶ 17(a), (c), (d).6
The Individual’s lack of candor is centered on his failure to provide truthful and candid answers
on his September 2016 QNSP and in his August 2018 ESI concerning his prior drug use and history
of treatment for alcohol and drug use. The Individual had the opportunity to disclose this previous
omission during his August 2018 ESI, however, he did not do so. Instead, he waited to disclose
his drug history until his April 2019 CI with the DOE Psychologist, and admitted that he probably
would not have disclosed his prior heroin use if the DOE Psychologist had not confronted him
with information from his drug treatment records. I therefore find that the Individual’s disclosure
was not sufficiently prompt to provide mitigation under Guideline E at ¶ 17(a).
Regarding ¶ 17(c), the Individual signed the QNSP, including the acknowledgement that providing
knowing and false information can be punished by a fine or imprisonment, yet he intentionally
concealed his past drug use and drug treatment, stating he was concerned that he would not be
hired if the DOE learned of his past heroin use. While he explained that his failure to disclose was
based on the negative stigma and shame associated specifically with heroin use, he was also not
candid about his previous marijuana use. These multiple, willful nondisclosures are not minor
offenses. Moreover, while his behavior concerning his recent alcohol use is not a basis for concern
under Guideline E, his testimony on the topic provided an opportunity to evaluate his candor. I
6 The additional mitigating factors for Guideline E at ¶ 17(b), (e)–(g) do not apply in the instant case. Paragraph 17(b)
does not apply because the Individual is pro se, and therefore, was not advised by counsel regarding his omission.
Paragraph 17(f) does not apply because the Individual did not make allegations pertaining to the source for the SSC
allegations. Paragraph 17 (e) and (g) do not apply because there were no SSC allegations concerning vulnerability to
exploitation, nor were there allegations involving association with persons involved in criminal activities.
- 9 -
note that the Individual was honest in testifying that he last consumed alcohol 46 days prior to the
hearing. However, he admitted that when he asked his IOP counselor for a letter regarding his
sobriety treatment, he had already relapsed into alcohol use but chose not to inform his IOP
counselor of his relapse. Also, he admitted to secretly consuming alcohol in his room and not
disclosing it to his parents, both after he completed his Inpatient Program and more recently within
the past few months. His lack of candor is revealing because his parents demonstrated their care
and unconditional support for his sobriety in their testimony, yet he has not been forthcoming with
them regarding his alcohol use. Accordingly, I cannot find that the Individual’s behavior is
unlikely to recur, nor can I find that his behavior does not cast doubt on his trustworthiness or good
judgment.
Concerning the mitigating factor at ¶ 17(d), the Individual completed an IOP program in 2019-
2020. He also testified concerning his progress with his IOP counselor to address his feelings of
shame and negative stigma regarding his past heroin use, and how to overcome this underlying
cause for his lack of candor. However, the impact of his actions is undermined for the reasons
discussed in the previous paragraph, including his recent lack of candor with his IOP counselor
and his parents. I therefore find that the Individual has not met his burden to resolve the concerns
under ¶ 17(d).
B. Guideline G
The DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual’s heavy alcohol consumption impairs his
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness raises security concerns under Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(c). An individual may mitigate security
concerns under Guideline G if:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations;
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment
program; or,
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required
aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a)–(d).
In this case, the Individual has not satisfied any of the mitigating conditions. He does not meet the
first mitigation condition because of the recency of his relapse. The Individual last consumed
alcohol 46 days prior to the hearing. Further, his most recent PEth test in April 2021 was positive
at a level that is indicative of moderate to heavy alcohol consumption.
- 10 -
Regarding the second and fourth mitigating conditions at ¶ 23(b) and 23(d), I credit the Individual
for completing an IOP program as was initially recommended by the DOE Psychologist. In
addition, the Individual acknowledged that he is an alcoholic, has participated in AA meetings,
and successfully maintained complete abstinence from March 2019 to June 2020. However, due
to the Individual’s relapse, his renewed sobriety date is 46 days prior to the hearing. Moreover,
while he is committed to attending AA meetings and is working the steps, he indicated that he does
not believe that he needs formalized treatment. Notably, however, the DOE Psychologist opined,
based on updated evidence, that the Individual meets the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder,
Moderate, and the severity of his alcohol use warrants additional treatment recommendations.
Since the Individual has not yet achieved 12 months of abstinence following his most recent
relapse, nor has he entered an aftercare program, he has not complied with the DOE Psychologist’s
updated treatment recommendations. Accordingly, the Individual has not satisfied the criteria for
mitigation under ¶ 23(b) and 23(d),
Concerning the third mitigating factor at ¶ 23(c), the Individual previously participated in an
Inpatient Program which he completed it in 2014. After maintaining three years of abstinence, he
resumed alcohol consumption, and his PEth test results in April 2019, as reflected in the DOE
Psychologist’s report, were positive at a level consistent with heavy alcohol consumption. As
recommended by the DOE Psychologist, he attended an IOP in September 2019 which he
completed, however, he subsequently relapsed in July 2020. Since the Individual has demonstrated
a history of treatment and relapse, and is in need of additional, formalized treatment, he has not
satisfied the requirements to resolve security concerns under ¶ 23(c).
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guidelines E and G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. The parties may seek review of this
Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals