PSH-21-0030

*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 17, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0030
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 17, 2021
_____________________
Administrative Judge Decision
_____________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the Individual”) to
hold an access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled “General 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
access authorization should be denied.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual, an applicant for a DOE Security Clearance, signed and submitted a Questionnaire
for National Security Positions (QNSP) on March 3, 2016. Ex. 9. The United States Office of
Personnel Management’s (OPM) Investigation Services investigated the Individual and issued a
report of its findings on January 29, 2018. Ex. 11. In conjunction with this report, a Personnel
Security Specialist (Specialist) conducted an interview of the Individual on July 30, 2018. Ex. 10.
Based on the information provided, the Local Security Office (LSO) requested that the Individual
be evaluated by a DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who subsequently issued a
report of his findings (Report). Ex. 7. The Local Security Office (LSO) determined that unresolved
derogatory information existed that raised significant security concerns about the Individual.
Accordingly, the LSO began the present administrative review proceedings on February 20, 2020,
by issuing a Notification Letter informing the Individual that the LSO possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. The
1 Access to authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to
classified mater 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 to authorization or security clearance
2
Notification Letter further informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge to resolve these substantial doubts. 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,
and I conducted an administrative hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(e). The LSO submitted
eleven exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 11, and offered the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist. The Individual submitted twelve exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through L, and
offered the testimony of six witnesses including himself.2
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 substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance.
That information pertains to Guidelines G and J of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). The LSO further cites the Bond
Amendment, codified at 50 U.S.C. § 3343, in support of its conclusion that the Individual is
ineligible for a security clearance.
Under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), “[e]xcessive 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those
conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern
are “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence[,]” and
“[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder.”
Id. at ¶¶ 22(a), (d). With respect to Guideline G, the LSO alleged that (1) the DOE Psychologist
diagnosed the Individual was Substance Use Disorder (SUD), moderate to severe, not in remission,
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; (2) During his interview with the OPM
investigator, the Individual admitted to consuming three to four beers twice a week to daily from
March 2015 to June 2017, increasing his use to six or seven beers on the Saturday evenings, and
only being able to go a week without alcohol; (3) Despite the fact the Individual’s physician
instructed him to reduce his alcohol consumption in October 2017, the Individual continued to
consume two to three beers two to seven times per week between October 2017 and May 2018;
(4) From 1986 to 2008, the Individual was charged with a number of alcohol related offenses. Ex.
1 at 1-3.
Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) provides that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s
judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s
2 The Individual submitted two Employee Appraisals, from March and December 2020, indicating he received a “Fully
Meets Expectations” rating. Ex. E; Ex. F. An April 13, 2021 email provides that despite the Individual’s years of
employment, his personnel file contains only the two appraisals. Ex. G. He also provided two Logistics Spot Awards
from 2019 and 2020. Ex. Ex. C; Ex. D.
3
ability 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:
“[a] pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to affect a national
security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt on the individual's judgment,
reliability, or trustworthiness, and evidence…of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted[.]” Guideline J at ¶ 31(a)-(b). The LSO
alleges that from 1986 to 2015, the Individual was charged with a number of criminal offenses.
Ex. 1 at 3-5.
As stated above, the Notification letter also cites the Bond Amendment. The Bond Amendment
states, in pertinent part, that an agency may refuse to grant or renew a security clearance for an
individual who “has been convicted in any court of the United States of a crime, was sentenced to
imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year, and was incarcerated as a result of that sentence for not
less than one year.” 50 U.S.C. § 3343(c)(1)(A). The Individual was sentenced to one year and
eleven months and served prison time from June 2008 through May 2010 after being convicted of
Accident Involving Damage to a Vehicle, Failure to Stop, Leaving Scene, and felony Warrant for
Probation Violation stemming from a 2003 Driving Under the Influence (DUI) offense. Ex. 1 at 1.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review process under Part 710 requires me, as Administrative Judge, to
issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgement, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable or unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”), Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990),
cert. denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personal 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. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c)-(d).
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
4
The Individual does not challenge the basic facts listed in the Notification Letter; namely, that
from 1986 to 2015, he was charged with a number of criminal offenses, the majority of which were
alcohol related, such as DUI, and in June 2008, he was convicted of Accident Involving Damage
to Vehicle, Failure to Stop, Leaving Scene, and felony Warrant for Probation Violation stemming
from a 2003 DUI, resulting in over a year of incarceration. Ex. 9 at 50-51; Ex. 10 at 62-64; Ex. 11
at 82-89.
A personnel security interview was conducted by a Specialist on July 30, 2018. Ex. 10. During the
interview, the Individual told the Specialist that he believes he has been an alcoholic his “whole
life,” and continues to consume alcohol as he feels he has become physically dependent. Ex. 10 at
234. The Individual was abstinent during his period of incarceration, but gradually resumed his
alcohol consumption upon his release in 2013. Ex. 10 at 112. From March 2015 to 2017, he began
consuming approximately three to four beers in a span of three hours from twice a week up to daily
consumption. He also reported possibly consuming six or seven beers over four hours on the
weekends but occasionally abstaining for up to a week. Ex. 10 at 128-31. In June 2017, the
Individual reduced his alcohol consumption to approximately two beers twice a week, increasing
the amount on Saturdays to approximately three beers. Ex. 10 at 133-34. Notably, in October 2017,
the Individual’s primary care physician instructed him to abstain from alcohol consumption
entirely. Ex. 10 at 108, 136-38. It was upon receiving this recommendation that the Individual
began limiting himself to a maximum of three beers a day. Ex. 10 at 137-39. At the time of the
interview, the Individual indicated that he was consuming approximately two beers about two to
seven nights a week, limiting himself to a total of three beers. Ex. 10 at 98-107, 112, 143
The Individual denied operating a vehicle in an impaired state since 2003, denied having ever
reported to work in a hungover state or failing to report to work due to intoxication. Ex. 10 at 154-
57, 159. He also denied consuming alcohol while at work, being questioned about his drinking
habits by anyone at work or testing positive for alcohol in a randomized alcohol test at work. Ex.
10 at 160, 162. He stated that he purchases beer “a couple times a week,” usually purchasing a
twelve-pack at a time. Ex. 10 at 158. The Individual also confirmed that he attended AA classes
during his probationary period following his incarceration, but never started work the 12 steps of
the AA program and did not obtain a sponsor. Ex. 10 171-73.
Pursuant to the LSO’s request, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation. 3 Ex. 7. The
resulting November 17, 2018 report noted that the Individual was charged with five DUIs from
ages twenty-three to twenty-nine, and “from age [twenty] to about [ten] years ago, [the Individual]
incurred [twenty] legal infractions, most of which involved his use of alcohol[.]” Ex. 7 at 1-2. The
report also indicated that the Individual made “several unsuccessful attempts to moderate his
consumption[,]” and “while he is exercising some control over his alcohol consumption, he
3 The DOE Psychologist’s evaluation of the Individual included two laboratory tests, an Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG) and
a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, both of which were positive. Ex. 7 at 6. The EtG urine test detects alcohol up to 80
hours after any alcoholic beverage is consumed. The PEth test detects alcohol use during the previous 28-days. Id.
The Individual has submitted negative EtG and PEth tests from April 21, 2021 and April 26, 2021, respectively. Ex.
A; Ex. B.
5
remains dependent on it.” Ex. 7 at 3-4. The report noted that Individual attended court-ordered
classes pertaining to alcohol awareness, a twenty-one day, voluntary inpatient treatment program
in 2008, and an aftercare program that the Individual attended once a week for one month. Ex. 7
at 5. From 2004 to 2008, the Individual attended AA meetings twice a week. Ex. 7 at 5. The DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with SUD, moderate to severe, not in remission, and
indicated the Individual has not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
Ex. 7 at 8. Further, it was recommended that the Individual remain abstinent from alcohol for
twelve months and provide proof of such, since he is not a candidate for engaging in controlled
consumption, He also recommended that the Individual participate in a group like AA, work on
the 12 steps with a sponsor and address his depression by engaging the services of a psychiatrist.
Ex. 7 at 8.4
The Individual underwent four psychological tests conducted by a psychologist he engaged
(Individual’s Psychologist) in April 2021, the findings of which were compiled into reports. Ex. I;
Ex. J; Ex. K; Ex. L. The Individual’s Psychologist noted that the Individual did not report any
“significant problems with alcohol or drug abuse or dependence.”5 Ex. I at 7. Ex. I at 8. A
Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (SASSI) indicated a low probability of having a
substance dependence disorder. Ex. J. However, one report attributed to the Individual’s
Psychologist indicates that the Individual “has experienced recurring episodes of an alcohol use
disorder[,]” and notes that “[c]linical syndromes are suggested…in the area of Alcohol Use
Disorder.” Ex. L at 2, 6-7.
The Hearing
The hearing began with the testimony of four character witnesses, the Individual’s colleagues and
friends. All of the Individual’s witnesses, including his supervisor, denied having ever smelled
alcohol on or about the person of the Individual, having seen the Individual consume alcohol while
at work, having seen the Individual report to work in a hungover state, having heard the Individual
state he was intoxicated the weekend or night before reporting to work, or having ever heard the
Individual discuss plans to become intoxicated or consume alcohol. Tr. at 16-17, 24-26, 36-37.
Further, all of the witnesses acknowledged that they were informed of the Individual’s prior
alcohol-related incidents, arrests, convictions, and prison term. Tr. at 17, 26, 38. The witnesses
provided further testimony regarding the Individual’s good judgement, reliability, trustworthiness,
his ability to follow rules and regulations, and ability to protect sensitive information. Tr. at 17-
18, 26-27, 38-39, 49-50. The Individual’s neighbor testified that prior to approximately December
2017, they would share beers on the weekend, and in 2018, the Individual’s alcohol intake
increased, as he was grieving the loss of a family member and partner. Tr. at 46-47. His neighbor
4 Regarding the Individual’s depression, the DOE Psychologist noted that “[s]uccessfully addressing his depression
will certainly support his abstinence. Ex. 7 at 8.
5 The report in Exhibit I indicates that some of the Individual’s responses may not have been entirely forthright, and
that “he tends to portray himself as being relatively free of common shortcomings to which most individuals will
admit[.]” Ex. I at 6. Accordingly, the report suggests that “the interpretive hypotheses in [the] report should be
reviewed with caution.” Ex. I at 6.
6
went on to state that after November 2018, they began limiting themselves to sharing a six-pack
of beer on Saturdays. Tr. at 47-48.
In his testimony, the Individual confirmed that his first alcohol-related charge, a DWI, occurred in
1986, and that alcohol became a “problem” for him in the years that followed. Tr. at 61. His last
alcohol-related incident was in 2008, and that was the last criminal incident, outside of traffic
incidents, with which he was charged. Tr. at 61-62. After the November 2018 evaluation with the
DOE Psychologist, the Individual reduced his alcohol consumption from a nearly daily basis to an
event that usually took place on Saturday nights, limiting himself to three beers, which was
approved of by his personal physician. Tr. at 64-65. He discontinued his consumption of alcohol
entirely around March 2021, and testified that he not only no longer feels dependent on alcohol
and that he no longer misses alcohol. Tr. at 66. The Individual admitted that he used to drink to
deal with stress but has since employed other methods by which to cope, those which he learned
in a therapeutic community in prison. Tr. at 67-69. The Individual does not intend to resume
consuming alcohol in the future, and prison taught him that things like rules and regulations apply
to him as well. Tr. at 71. He further testified that he completed an inpatient treatment program for
alcohol in January 2008 prior to being incarcerated, and continued treatment while in prison. Tr.
at 76-77. He admitted that he has not participated in AA or any similar program since his release
in 2010 and attributed his sobriety to his desire to keep his current position of employment. Tr. at
79-80. Although he was sober for approximately thirty months after being released from prison,
he resumed drinking, stating that “it kind of happened again.” Tr. at 88-89.
He testified that when he received and read the DOE Psychologists recommendations in July 2020,
he felt he was complying with the recommendation to abstain, as he had already reduced his
alcohol consumption. Tr. at 81-82. When confronted with the DOE Psychologist’s statement that
the Individual is not a candidate for controlled drinking, the Individual stated that “he wasn’t aware
he had to[]” comply with that particular recommendation. Tr. at 82. In the period immediately
preceding his evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual was drinking approximately a
six-pack of beer daily. Tr. at 88. When asked if he has support, as he has chosen not to participate
in a program like AA, the Individual stated, “I must be a unique person because I don’t need any.”
Tr. at 85. In later testimony, the Individual confirmed that in the past, he had previously attempted
to reduce or control his alcohol consumption but would ultimately resume consuming alcohol
“after a week or so.” Tr. at 91-92.
The Individual’s Psychologist, having administered four tests on April 14, 2021, did not “see
anything that would raise questions about [the Individual’s] judgement, reliability, stability, or
trustworthiness[.]” Tr. at 99-102. He also determined that the Individual’s mood had improved
since the DOE Psychologist’s evaluation, as the Individual had “gone through the grieving
process[,]” and noted that the Individual is not clinically depressed. Tr. at 102. Based on the
evaluation conducted in April 2021, the Individual’s Psychologist does not believe the Individual
has an alcohol use disorder or habitually or binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired
7
judgement. Tr. at 104.6 Further, he opined that the Individual does not have a substance use
disorder, as there is adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Tr. at 109-10. He stated
that the most common way individuals discontinue their consumption of alcohol is just “decid[ing]
to stop.” Tr. at 106-08, 120-23.7 Further, if the Individual resumed drinking alcohol in the future,
it would not necessarily mean that the Individual has a substance abuse disorder, as “[t]here are
plenty of people who can engage in controlled drinking.” Tr. at 108-09. The Individual’s prognosis
was described as “quite good.” Tr. at 110, 112. In later testimony, the Individual’s Psychologist
confirmed that the test results indicate that “alcohol use disorder [is] a possible clinical syndrome”
with which to diagnose the Individual, but qualified this by stating that because the Individual had
alcohol use disorder in the pest, the test reflects this reality. Tr. at 116-17.
In direct contradiction to the testimony provided by the Individual’s Psychologist, the DOE
Psychologist stated he has neither heard anyone state nor has he seen any research support the
proposition that “most people just stop drinking” without any support or treatment. Tr. at 132-33,
135, 151-53.8 The DOE Psychologist further stated that if an individual has remained abstinent for
a “year or two[,]” then “they no longer deserve that diagnosis [but the] DSM does not allow us to
say that technically[.]” Tr. at 136. He did state that the definition for remission is clear, in that the
Individual must not meet any of the diagnostic criteria for one year. Tr. at 137. The DOE
Psychologist acknowledged that the Individual is in remission, but that based on the Individual’s
history and the fact the Individual has been abstinent for only two months, he “cannot have a lot
of confidence that [the Individual] can sustain this.” Tr. at 138-39, 142-43.9 While the Individual
has been sober for two months, the DOE Psychologist testified the Individual would need to show
six to twelve months of abstinence before he would feel comfortable stating the Individual has
been rehabilitated. Tr. at 147-48. Although the DOE Psychiatrist acknowledged that the Individual
would not do well in an AA type of setting, he would do well to have a sponsor or alcohol
counselor. Tr. at 141. The DOE Psychologist reiterated his recommendation that the Individual
permanently abstain from alcohol consumption, treat his underlying depression, which he felt
extended beyond the grieving process, but amended his recommendation that the Individual
participate in AA, and instead, work with a counselor for at least six months. Tr. at 143-45.
6 DOE Counsel asked the Individual’s Psychologist how he determined the Individual no longer has a diagnosis when
“there is no formal endpoint” to an alcohol related diagnosis made pursuant to Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders (DSM-5). 112. The Individual’s Psychologist conceded that there is no formal endpoint to such a
diagnosis but went on to state that prior to his two months of sobriety, the Individual was consuming alcohol “well
within acceptable social limits[.]” Tr. at 112-14. He concluded responding, “I say he doesn’t [have a diagnosis]. The
DSM says he does. I will leave you with that.” Tr. at 115.
7 The Individual’s Psychologist also testified that when the efficacy of treatment programs is examined, we are brought
to the conclusion that “the majority of people stop on their own[,]” and that in general, “people recover without going
to a formal program.” Tr. at 123, 127-29.
8 The DOE Psychologist stated that although treatment may not be such a successful endeavor, it is important. He
provided statistics and examples indicating that treatment resulted in lower rates of relapse. Tr. at 151-52.
9 Although the DOE Psychologist felt it likely that the Individual would remain sober for the next year, he was less
confident the Individual would remain sober two years on. Tr. at 142-43. Further, the Psychologist testified that
although he recommended one year of sobriety, he would prefer to see eighteen months of sobriety. Tr. at 149.
8
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
The DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with SUD, moderate to severe, not in
remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, reported levels of alcohol
consumption, and history of alcohol related offenses raise concerns under Guideline G. 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).
While I appreciate the fact that the Individual had remained abstinent for approximately two
months at the time of the hearing, submitted negative PEth and EtG test results from April 2021,
and voiced his desire to remain abstinent regardless of his clearance status, I cannot find that the
Individual has mitigated the Guideline G concerns. Perhaps most concerning is the fact the
Individual identified himself as an alcoholic but did not find it necessary to implement the DOE
Psychologists recommendations, which directly addressed the Individual’s maladaptive alcohol
use. Ex. 10 at 234.10
The mitigating condition set forth at § 23(a) is not present. As an initial matter, the Individual had
only begun his journey into sobriety at the time of the hearing, completing approximately two
months of the recommended twelve months. Further, the record is clear that the Individual engaged
in maladaptive alcohol use on a regular basis over an extended period of time, and he has failed to
show that his maladaptive alcohol use is unlikely to recur because he has failed to seek treatment
or support, as recommended by the DOE Psychologist. Tr. at 138-39, 142-43. Of particular concern
10 With respect to alcohol treatment programs available to individuals, while I understand the Individual Psychologist’s
contention that such programs are not as effective as one would hope, infra n.7, I found the DOE Psychologist’s
testimony more convincing as to the usefulness such treatment programs.
9
is the Individual’s failure to address his underlying depression, which the DOE Psychologist
specifically indicated could assist in his efforts to remain abstinent. Ex. 7 at 8.
Although the Individual ceased his alcohol consumption because he recognized his alcohol use
was maladaptive, he has not reduced his alcohol consumption or ceased alcohol consumption “in
accordance with treatment recommendations,” as he has not fully complied with the
recommendations made by the DOE Psychologist. As the Individual’s maladaptive consumption
spanned years and resumed after his prison sentence and an additional thirty months of sobriety
after serving his time, I am not convinced he can maintain his abstinence without enlisting the help
of a dedicated counselor or sponsor. Tr. at 143-45. As the record shows, the Individual began
consuming alcohol after a substantial period of abstinence. Tr. at 88-89. I am also unconvinced
that the Individual is unique in that he is not in need of support or only requires the support of his
neighbor, an individual who presented no qualifications or experience with substance abuse, as
this flies directly in the face of the professional opinion provided by the DOE Psychologist. Tr. at
84, 141. Accordingly, the mitigating condition set forth at § 23(b) is also not present.
As the Individual has neither completed nor is currently participating in a treatment program or
counseling, and that he has prior history of treatment and relapse, the mitigating conditions set
forth at 23(c) and § 23(d) are not present.
B. Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)
The Individual’s arrest record since 1986 raises security concerns under Guideline J. An individual
may mitigate security concerns under Guideline J if:
(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 case 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 no
long present in the person’s life;
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; or
(d) 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)-(d).
Most of the Individual’s criminal conduct has been alcohol related, and while it is commendable
that the Individual has not had an alcohol-related criminal charge since 2008, I cannot find that he
10
has mitigated Guideline J concerns. Many of his arrested have been alcohol related. In this regard,
the Individual is new to sobriety, having only remained abstinent for two months at the time of the
hearing. Considering that he has not sought treatment for his depression since being provided that
recommendation by the DOE Psychologist and has failed to participate in AA meetings or engage
a counselor, I have concerns regarding the success of his ongoing sobriety, and accordingly, I
cannot find that alcohol related offenses are unlikely to recur. Further, although it is undisputed
that approximately thirteen years have lapsed since the Individual’s last alcohol related offense, I
simply cannot ignore the multitude of these offenses. Tr. at 61. The egregiousness of the number
of alcohol related offenses has not been eroded by time, and these offenses and circumstances still
call the Individual’s judgement into question especially given the uncertain status of the Individual
reformation from alcohol misuse. My concern over the Individual’s judgement is particularly
bolstered by the fact the Individual has not sought support or assistance for an issue that resulted
in so many criminal charges, outside of the support offered by his neighbor. Tr. at 141.
Consequently, I find that the mitigating conditions set forth in ¶ 32(a) are not present.
Although the Individual provided evidence of a good employment record for the year 2020, has
testified that his last alcohol related criminal charge was in 2008, and has provided evidence of
two performance awards, the fact remains that his criminal record has spanned over twenty years.
Tr. at 61. While the Individual has demonstrated praiseworthy accomplishments in his current
employment position, such that the mitigating factor in ¶32(d) might be applicable, I do not find
this sufficient to fully mitigate the Guideline J security concerns.
I need not address the mitigating factors described in Guidelines J at ¶ 32(b) and (c), as the
Individual presented no evidence he was coerced or pressured into criminal action and did not
present any evidence that he had not committed the criminal acts.
C. Bond Amendment
The Individual did not deny the fact that he served a term of imprisonment exceeding one year.
The Individual is, as a result, disqualified from holding a DOE Access Authorization under the
Bond Amendment. Although a number of years have passed since the Individual’s incarceration,
I find that, due to the Individual’s seeming reluctance to seek professional assistance in addressing
his SUD diagnosis in the manner suggested by the DOE Psychologist, an exception to
disqualification under the Bond Amendment is not appropriate, as the Individual’s most egregious
criminal charges were alcohol related.
11
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked the Bond Amendment
and Guidelines G and J. After considering all of the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in
a commonsense manner, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised
under each of these Guidelines. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that granting his
security clearance would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with
the national interest. Therefore, the Individual’s security clearance should be denied. The parties
may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.28.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals