PSH-21-0115

*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 27, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-21-0115
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 20, 2021
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE)
regulations, set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, Subpart A, entitled “General Criteria and Procedures
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.”1 As
discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations
and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative
Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In December 2019, the Individual was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication.
Following the arrest, the Individual underwent an evaluation with a Substance Abuse Professional
(SAP) as ordered by his employer. Ex. 9. He subsequently underwent a psychological evaluation
with a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist) in January 2021. Ex. 7.
Due to unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol use, the Local Security
Office (LSO) informed the Individual, in a March 2021 Notification Letter, that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility to hold a
security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
1 Access authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to
classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). Such
authorization will be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I
subsequently conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel
submitted 11 numbered exhibits (Exhibits 1-11) into the record and presented the testimony of the
Psychologist. The Individual introduced 15 lettered exhibits (Exhibits A-T) into the record and
presented the testimony of four witnesses, including himself. The exhibits will be cited in this
Decision as “Ex.” followed by the appropriate numeric designation. The hearing transcript in the
case will be cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included a statement of derogatory information
that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The information in
the letter specifically cites Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Guideline G relates to
security risks arising from excessive alcohol consumption. Excessive alcohol consumption often
leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness. Guideline G at ¶ 21.
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the Psychologist’s determination that the Individual
met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 5th Edition, (DSM-5) criteria for
Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1. It
also relied upon the Individual’s admission in his SAP Evaluation that he consumed five shots of
liquor and three beers prior to his 2019 Public Intoxication arrest. Id. The LSO additionally cited
the Individual’s December 2019 arrest for Public Intoxication, as well as a February 2004 arrest
- 3 -
for Driving Under the Influence and Illegal Consumption of Alcohol and a July 2003 citation for
open container. Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
As stated above, in December 2019, the Individual was arrested and charged with Public
Intoxication. Id. Approximately a week later, the Individual underwent an SAP evaluation, during
which he explained the circumstances leading up to the arrest. Ex. 9. The Individual explained that,
prior to the arrest, he consumed five shots of liquor and three beers over the course of an evening.
Id. at 1-2. The SAP diagnosed the Individual with “Alcohol Intoxication, with Mild Use Disorder”
and recommended that the Individual complete 25 hours of counseling and education related to
alcohol and substance use, including participation in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), or a similar
program. Id. at 2. The SAP further recommended five individual counseling sessions. Id. In a
follow-up evaluation in January 2020, the SAP confirmed that the Individual had successfully
completed all treatment recommendations. Id. at 3.
In January 2021, the Psychologist conducted an evaluation of the Individual. Ex. 7. During the
evaluation, the Individual explained that he “barely drinks at all” since he was arrested in December
2019 and specified that he was consuming “a couple of beers” once a week. Id. at 3. As part of the
evaluation, the Psychologist ordered a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which was positive at a
level of 161 ng/mL. Id. at 4. A physician evaluated the results and indicated that the Individual’s
results were inconsistent with his reported alcohol consumption. Id. at 4. The Psychologist opined
that the Individual was minimizing his alcohol consumption. Id. Ultimately, she diagnosed the
Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Id. at 7. She recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for at least 12
months, participate in random breathalyzers through his employer, undergo at least two PEth tests
over a 12-month period, and participate in AA meetings, at least once per week. Id.
At the hearing, four witnesses testified on the Individual’s behalf: the Individual’s supervisor
(Supervisor), the Individual’s counselor (Counselor), the Individual’s AA sponsor (Sponsor), and
the Individual himself. The Supervisor testified that he has known the Individual approximately six
years. Tr. at 31. He explained that he was aware that the Individual had been going through a
divorce, and it was clear that the Individual was “bothered by what was going on in his personal
life.” Id. at 32. The Supervisor noted that the Individual was “doing the best…he could do” and has
always “taken his job responsibilities seriously.” Id. at 33. He explained that Individual never
arrived to work intoxicated or smelling of alcohol, and the Supervisor has recently “noticed a
tremendous change in [the Individual], that things are much better for him. Id. at 32-33
The Counselor testified that she began working with the Individual at the beginning of 2020, shortly
after he was arrested. Id. at 13. She stated that she initially diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol
Use Disorder, Mild. Id. at 15. The Counselor noted that the Individual had “a lot going on in his
personal life,” including a divorce and anxiety, and he was “admittedly using alcohol” to cope. Id.
She stated that the Individual quickly recognized that his alcohol use “was something that he
needed to get under control and learn to cope with [his] emotions in a healthier way.” Id. She opined
that, over the year prior to the hearing, the Individual consistently demonstrated that “he knows
how to and can execute those things that are going to promote and maintain his sobriety.” Id. The
Counselor stated that the Individual consistently attended all sessions and demonstrated active
- 4 -
participation, and he was diligent about attending AA, working with a sponsor, and working
through the Twelve Steps of AA. Id. at 13-14. She felt confident that the Individual would maintain
his abstinence from alcohol and had demonstrated evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from
the diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild. Id. at 16, 27.
The Sponsor testified on the Individual’s behalf, stating that he, himself, had been a member of AA
for 34 years and had “sponsored dozens of people over the years.” Id. at 44. He explained that he
had known the Individual for a little over six months and had served as the Individual’s sponsor
since that time. Id. at 44-45. The Sponsor noted that he speaks with the Individual approximately
once per week, but the Individual can and does call him anytime. Id. at 46. Regarding the
Individual’s future intentions toward alcohol, the Sponsor testified that the Individual stated that
“he doesn’t want to drink,” and the Sponsor sees that the Individual “is doing what people [who]
don’t want to drink do.” Id. at 47. Specifically, he stated that the Individual is “working the
program,” which he explained means that the Individual is working through the steps of AA. Id.
The Sponsor indicated that he believes that the Individual is “genuine in his effort.” Id.
In his testimony, the Individual did not dispute the allegations in the Summary of Security Concerns
and sought to mitigate the issues raised therein. Id. at 78-81. He testified that he last consumed
alcohol on April 3, 2021. Id. at 61. The Individual explained that, since that time, he participates in
both virtual and in person AA groups approximately “three or four times a week.”2 Id. at 63-64. He
explained that AA has been “really beneficial” to him, and once he started working through the AA
steps, he realized that AA “is something that what you put into it is what you get out of it.” Id. 61-
62. As such, he had tried his “hardest to put in a good effort.” Id. at 62. The Individual testified that
since becoming active in AA, he has “found resources to help [him] through a difficult time, and
[he] plan[s] on continually using those resources throughout the rest of [his] life to get where [he]
need[s] to be and to remain sober.” Id. at 74. The Individual stated that he has worked through the
Twelve Steps and is in a continued maintenance stage, which he explained as looking “at yourself
daily and just rework[ing] the steps every day.” Id. at 92-93.
The Individual testified that he “realized that alcohol has a power over [him] that [he] can’t control.
So there’s no reason to drink at all, because every bad thing that’s…pretty much happened in [his]
life has had alcohol somewhere in the midst of it.” Id. at 65. Specifically, the Individual stated that
he intends to remain permanently abstinent from alcohol and continue to participate in AA. Id. He
explained that he continues to remain abstinent from alcohol as he has discovered a “newfound
peace” and “freedom.” Id. at 65-66. The Individual described this to mean that there is “nothing
that has [him] bound down, and [he] has more energy and willingness to see the world in a different
way.” Id. at 66.
Turning to the Psychologist’s report, the Individual acknowledged that he underreported his alcohol
consumption during the evaluation. Id. at 88. He explained that he may have been “in a little bit of
denial.” Id. Regarding the Psychologist’s laboratory testing recommendations, the Individual stated
that, over the prior eight months, he has undergone three PEth and three Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG)3
tests at his own expense. Id. at 70. He additionally participates in random alcohol testing through
2 The Individual submitted a list of the AA lectures he has attended as well as his AA attendance record. Ex. O, Q.
3 “EtG is a metabolite of ethyl alcohol that is present in the urine for up to 80 hours after any alcoholic beverage is
consumed.” Ex. 7 at 4.
- 5 -
his employer. Id. All test results have been negative for the presence of alcohol. Id.; see Ex. B-G,
S, T.
After observing all the hearing testimony, the Psychologist testified. Id. at 95. The Psychologist
opined that the Individual has demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation
from the Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild. Id at 99-101. Specifically, she stated that she was “very
pleased with the steps [the Individual] has taken,” and she felt that the steps the Individual
undertook demonstrated “exactly what [she] was hoping he would demonstrate.” Id. at 99. The
Psychologist noted that the Individual went beyond her recommendations and had “done a very
thorough job.” Id. at 100. Regarding the 12 months of abstinence from alcohol that she initially
recommended, the Psychologist stated that she was “not concerned” that, at the time, of the hearing,
the Individual had only been abstinent eight months. Id. She explained that the Individual had
“covered all of his bases in terms of the vulnerability and the risk factors that [she] would be looking
at.” Id. The Psychologist added that the Individual demonstrated that he has a “safety net…lots of
motivation, lots of support, and he’s treating” the underlying issues for which he was using alcohol
to cope. Id. at 100-101. She felt that the Individual would be able to carry on his abstinence from
alcohol for more than the additional four months needed to reach her initial recommendation of 12
months of abstinence. Id. at 101. As to a prognosis, the Psychologist opined that the Individual had
“set himself up to have the best prognosis possible.” Id.
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. In resolving the question of
the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns noted by the LSO
regarding Guideline G. I find that restoring the Individual’s DOE security clearance will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10
C.F.R. § 710.27(a). Therefore, I have determined that the Individual’s security clearance should be
restored. The specific findings that I make in support of this Decision are discussed below.
Pursuant to Guideline G, diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use
disorder is a condition that could raise a security concern and may disqualify an individual from
holding a security clearance. Guideline G at ¶ 22(d). Additionally, alcohol-related incidents away
from work could raise a disqualifying security concern. Id. at ¶ 22(a). If, however, an individual
acknowledges the 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, the individual may be
able to mitigate the security concern. Id. at ¶ 23(b).
In this case, the Individual’s Counselor and the Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol
Use Disorder, Mild, after he was arrested for Public Intoxication. See Guideline G at ¶ 22(a), (d).
However, since that time, the Individual has acknowledged that he had a problem with alcohol and
has completed, or is working to complete, all treatment recommendations. Id. at ¶ 23(b). The
Individual has sought out individual counseling, participated regularly in AA meetings, found a
- 6 -
sponsor, worked through the Twelve Steps of AA, and has successfully maintained his abstinence
from alcohol for a period of eight months, as demonstrated by his laboratory test results. Id. Both
the Counselor and the Psychologist are pleased with the progress he has shown and opined that he
has demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from the Alcohol Use
Disorder, Mild, diagnosis. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has mitigated the
Guideline G security concerns. As such, I find that the DOE should restore access authorization to
the Individual.
VI. Conclusion
After considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I have found that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should be restored. The parties may seek review of this Decision
by an Appeal Panel under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals