PSH-21-0054

*The original of this document contains information which is subject to withholding from disclosure
under 5 U.S. C. § 552. Such material has been deleted from this copy and replaced with XXXXXX’s.
United States Department of Energy
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: May 10, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0054
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 9, 2021
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX XXXXX (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 should not be
granted a security clearance.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires possession of a security
clearance. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) requested that the Individual be evaluated by a
DOE-consultant psychiatrist (“Psychiatrist”) who provided the LSO with a report that included
opinions and conclusions regarding the Individual’s alcohol consumption and psychological
profile. Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual by letter (“Notification Letter”) that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a
security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security
Concerns, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under
Guideline G and Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
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 exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. 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. See Transcript of Hearing (Tr.). At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf
and submitted eight exhibits, marked Exhibits A through H. The LSO presented the testimony of
the Psychiatrist and submitted eight exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 8.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I
(Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the bases for concern regarding the
Individual’s eligibility to possess a security clearance. Ex. 1.
Guideline G provides that “[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. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include “[h]abitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment” and “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional
(e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use disorder[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(c),
(d). The Notification Letter cited the Psychiatrist’s conclusion that the Individual met the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, (DSM-5) criteria for Alcohol
Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, in early remission, and the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the
point of impaired judgment. Ex. 1 at 5. The allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
G.
Guideline I provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. A condition that could
raise a security concern is “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the
individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id.
at ¶ 28(b). The Notification Letter cited the Psychiatrist’s conclusion that the Individual met the
DSM-5 criteria for Other Psychotic Disorder, Auditory Hallucinations, which is an emotional,
mental, or personality condition that can impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness.
Ex. 1 at 5. The allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
2 The LSO’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 149-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This decision will cite
to the LSO’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook where the
information is located as opposed to the page number that may be located on the page itself.
- 3 -
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 or 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. Id.
at § 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 stated, in his written request for administrative review, that he had stopped
consuming alcohol in the Summer of 2020. Ex. 2 at 7. He also stated that he had attempted to
attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) but found that the sessions were suspended due to the
COVID-19 pandemic. Id.
The record includes the report that contains the Psychiatrist’s conclusions. Therein, the Psychiatrist
recounted information provided by the Individual and the Individual’s ex-wife. The ex-wife stated
that she left the Individual in large part due to his excessive drinking. Ex. 6 at 27; Ex. 8 at 123.
The report includes a history of the Individual’s alcohol use that includes three alcohol-related
arrests, the most recent of which occurred in 2013. Ex. 6 at 27; Ex. 8 at 123. The Psychiatrist also
noted that the Individual provided conflicting information regarding his alcohol consumption by
refencing the statements the Individual provided during two separate Office of Personnel
Management (OPM) interviews in 2019.3 Ex. 6 at 27. The record reflects that the Individual stated
during the first interview that he was presently consuming only one to two beers every two or three
weeks; during the second interview, he told the investigator that he was consuming four or five
alcoholic drinks at a time once a week.4 Ex. 8 at 109, 111. The Individual stated during the
evaluation that he drinks alcohol occasionally and intends to continue doing so on “holidays” as
“a nightcap.” Ex. 6 at 28. He further stated that he does not intend to consume alcohol to
intoxication. Id.
The Psychiatrist’s report included information regarding the Individual’s psychiatric history. The
Individual stated that he initially received mental health treatment in 2013 after his then-wife
“tricked” him into going to a doctor under a different pretense. Id. at 29. The Individual confirmed
3 The OPM interviews were conducted as part of the security clearance application process.
4 The Psychiatrist testified at the hearing that, while he conceded that the Individual’s statements may not be
inconsistent, it is commonly the case that “the more people that hammer away at this subject, the more and more
drinks start emerging with each interview.” Tr. at 104.
- 4 -
that he had received the diagnosis of Auditory Hallucinations. Id. The Psychiatrist noted that the
Individual sometimes “denied hearing voices, but at other times he gave ambivalent answers to
questions about hallucinations, or vague denials.” Id. The Individual stated that he was not taking
medication or participating in counseling to treat his condition. Id. at 31. The Psychiatrist noted
that the Individual “had a high degree of denial with respect to the problems that alcohol . . . have
caused him[,] “[h]e showed little insight into his psychological problems (auditory hallucinations)
and was defensive or in denial with respect to this symptom reported by mental health
professionals and family members[,]” and “[h]is judgement regarding seeking treatment and taking
his medication has not been good.” Id. at 32.
The Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual as meeting the DSM-5 criteria for AUD, Mild, in early
remission, and Other Psychotic Disorder, Auditory Hallucinations. Id. at 33. The Psychiatrist also
concluded that the Individual has binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Id.
For rehabilitation or reformation of the AUD, the Psychiatrist recommended outpatient treatment
of moderate intensity for at least a year with a practitioner also treating the “psychotic disorder”
with medication. Id. at 35. The report did not include any additional recommended course of action
for managing the Other Psychotic Disorder, Auditory Hallucinations.
The record includes a letter from the Individual’s psychiatric treatment provider who provides and
manages the Individual’s medication. Ex. A. Therein, the provider states that the Individual has
been attending appointments regularly, every four to six weeks, since November 2020. Id. The
letter recounts the Individual’s self-reported compliance with his medication regimen, the
medication’s success in treating his auditory hallucinations, and his abstinence from alcohol. Id.
The provider opined that the Individual would have “the best opportunity for long-term
management of [his] condition” if he continues to attend treatment, abstain from alcohol, and take
prescribed medication. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual testified regarding his diagnosis of auditory hallucinations. He
testified that he received the diagnosis approximately ten years ago. Tr. 12-13. He testified that, at
that time, he was also prescribed medication that would prevent him from “talking to himself.” Id.
at 13. He also confirmed his compliance with his medication regimen, which he stated is supposed
to “keep him calm.” Id. at 52. He explained that, when suffering from symptoms, he talks or argues
with himself in response to hearing questions being asked. Id. at 17. He explained that he talks to
himself when he grows frustrated, and he grows frustrated when he cannot answer the questions.
Id. at 27. He also indicated that the symptoms occurred when he was not consuming alcohol. Id.
at 16.
The Individual testified that he occasionally had symptoms until, prompted by the Psychiatrist’s
report, he met with his treatment provider in 2020, who is the same provider who treated him in
2017. Id. at 18-19. He testified that over the last few months preceding the hearing, he requested
and received an increase in the dosage of his medication because he had been experiencing
symptoms.5 Id. at 20-21. The Individual testified that his current medication dosage appears to be
working, he has not suffered any instances of speaking to himself, and he no longer feels frustrated.
Id. at 27-28. He also stated the following: “I try to no longer speak out loud in front of people. If
there is [sic] any thoughts that I’m having, I try to keep them within myself in terms of talking, if
5 The provider increased his dose by 200%. Tr. at 21.
- 5 -
I get frustrated or something.” Id. at 53. He stated that he intends to continue his current treatment
regimen until his provider recommends otherwise. Id. at 28, 31-32.
The Individual also testified regarding his alcohol use. He admitted that alcohol had been a
problem in his past. Id. at 33. More recently, however, he has been abstaining from alcohol since
the summer of 2020. Id. at 37. He testified that he stopped consuming alcohol because it was
causing problems in his life. Id. at 37. He also testified that he has been remotely attending AA
sessions for a few months: first attending a session every day for a couple of weeks before reducing
his attendance to twice a week. Id. at 44. He also testified that he does not have an AA sponsor,
but he has learned about all of the AA Steps and worked through some, but not all, of them. Id. at
45-46. He testified that he intends to go through all of the AA Steps, attend live meetings when
they are available, and obtain a sponsor. Id. at 46.
Lastly, the Individual confirmed that he has not pursued treatment for his AUD other than AA. Id.
at 47-48. He admitted that he continues to have urges to consume alcohol, but he rebuts the urges
by thinking of the reasons that he should remain abstinent. Id. at 48. He also enjoys activities such
as hunting and fishing without alcohol. Id. at 42-43. He testified that he no longer associates with
the same people with whom he used to consume alcohol. Id. at 48.
The Psychiatrist testified that his diagnosis of the Individual’s psychological condition is
consistent with the diagnosis provided by the Individual’s treatment provider.6 Id. at 73. He
explained that Other Psychotic Disorder, Auditory Hallucinations, is a type of psychosis that
indicates a condition where the Individual is out of touch with reality. Id. at 73. He explained that
individuals experiencing such hallucinations can inadvertently disclose information. Id. at 81. He
also explained that a person experiencing psychosis will consequently have questionable judgment
and reliability. Id. at 110. The Psychiatrist opined that Individual’s testimony failed to show that
the hallucinations are under control despite taking medication. Id. at 89-90, 97-98. The Psychiatrist
opined that the medication will likely need some more adjustments to eliminate the auditory
hallucinations.7 Id. at 90. The Psychiatrist testified that the Individual demonstrated a lack of
insight into his condition by referencing the Individual’s explanation that he is prescribed
medication because he has a problem talking with himself instead of admitting it is to treat auditory
hallucinations. Id. at 92. The Psychiatrist gave the Individual a fair prognosis regarding the
psychological condition and testified that the prognosis would be more positive if the Individual
can better manage or eliminate the symptoms of his condition. Id. at 98-99.
The Psychiatrist also agreed with the diagnosis of the Individual’s treatment provider and stated
that the Individual’s AUD is currently in sustained remission because a year had passed since the
Individual last consumed alcohol. Id. at 85. However, the Psychiatrist still gave the Individual’s
AUD a fair prognosis. Id. at 85. In reaching his conclusion, the Psychiatrist noted that Individual’s
treatment has not been very frequent or potent, referencing that the Individual has only been
attending AA for about four months and did not yet have an AA sponsor. Id. at 83-84. As part of
his testimony, the Psychiatrist stated that the value of a sponsor is that sponsors can see through
6 The Psychiatrist also stated, however, that his diagnosis differed in that he did not rule out that his condition could
have been caused by alcohol or substance use. Tr. at 74.
7 The Psychiatrist also noted that the prescribed dosage is on the low end of the treatment spectrum. Tr. at 88-89.
- 6 -
deception, provide resources during difficult periods, and they “will walk you through the 12
Steps.” Id. at 105.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
Under Guideline G, the following relevant conditions could mitigate security concerns based on
alcohol consumption:
(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 . . . abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations[.]
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
Based on the record in this case, I conclude that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence
to resolve the Guideline G security concerns under ¶ 23(a) or ¶ 23(b). My rationale equally applies
to both mitigating conditions. While it is true that the Individual acknowledged his pattern of
maladaptive alcohol use at the hearing by stating it has caused problems in his life, I do not find
that the Individual has taken sufficient actions to overcome his problem, nor has he established a
pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. The Individual’s testimony
indicates he has remained abstinent for over a year, but he has not complied with the treatment
recommendations of the Psychiatrist nor pursued alternative means of supporting his abstinence
from alcohol. Furthermore, the Psychiatrist, who evaluated his recent progress, declined to give
the Individual a positive prognosis based on the Individual’s relatively short AA participation
without the benefit of a sponsor. For these reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the
Guideline G security concerns.
B. Guideline I Considerations
Under Guideline I, the following relevant conditions could mitigate security concerns based on a
psychological condition:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has
demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a condition
that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving counseling or
treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional[.]
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
- 7 -
I conclude that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline I
security concerns under ¶ 29(a) or ¶ 29(b). There is little evidence that the Individual’s condition
is readily controllable with treatment, and I find that neither the Individual’s treatment provider
nor the Psychiatrist provided a positive prognosis for the Individual’s psychological condition. On
the first point, the Individual’s treatment provider’s statement that the medication has been
successful in treating his auditory hallucinations is based on the Individual’s self-report, and the
Individual confirmed that, about two months before the hearing, he requested an increase in his
dosage in order to manage the symptoms of his condition. If true, the Individual has only been
symptom-free for a short period of time even though he had been taking his medication as
prescribed since the end of 2020. That relatively short, symptom-free period does not alleviate my
concern that the symptoms will likely recur, and I do not conclude that his condition is readily
controllable. As to the prognosis, I do not find that the Individual’s treatment provider’s statement
that continuing the current treatment regimen will create the best opportunity for long-term
management to be a positive prognosis; instead, I find that it is an endorsement of the positive
potential of his current regimen. Similarly, I do not find that the Psychiatrist’s fair prognosis to be
a positive prognosis because the Psychiatrist remained guarded and concerned by the Individual’s
lack of insight and treatment progress. Accordingly, I conclude that the Individual has not resolved
the Guideline I security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised a security concern under Guidelines G and I of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I 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 should not be granted access authorization.
The parties may seek review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel, under the regulation set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals