PSH-22-0019

*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: December 1, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0019
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 28, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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 access
authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a security
clearance. In October 2020, the local security office (LSO) was notified that the Individual had
entered an inpatient alcohol treatment program. Exhibit (Ex.) 6. The LSO issued the Individual a
letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning her use of alcohol. Ex. 7. In her response to the LOI, the
Individual disclosed that she had become dependent on alcohol to cope with stress. Id. at 1.
A DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview of the
Individual on June 29, 2021. Ex. 8 at 2.2 At the request of the DOE Psychologist, the Individual
provided blood and urine samples for laboratory testing. Id. at 9–10. A Medical Doctor (MD) who
interpreted the results of the laboratory tests indicated that the blood test results were “congruent
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 internal pagination of numerous exhibits offered by the LSO does not correspond to the number of pages
included in the exhibit. For example, the second page of Exhibit 8 is marked as page 1 due to an unnumbered first
page. This Decision cites to pages in the order in which they appear in exhibits without regard for their internal
pagination.
- 2 -
with very heavy alcohol use.” Id. at 38. On July 11, 2021, the DOE Psychologist issued a
Psychological Assessment (Report) in which she determined that the Individual met the diagnostic
criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Id. at 11–12. The DOE Psychologist also determined
that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), Recurrent
Episode, Moderate, under the DSM-5. Id. at 12.
The LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified her that it was suspending her security
clearance because it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her
eligibility to hold a security clearance. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the
letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline
G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised her 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
hearing. The LSO submitted twelve exhibits (Ex. 1–12). The Individual submitted eight exhibits
(Ind. Ex. 1–8). The Individual testified on her own behalf and offered the testimony of a clinical
psychiatrist (Individual’s Psychiatrist). Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 16, 71. The LSO offered the
testimony of the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 126.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) as the first basis for its determination that the
Individual was ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1. “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21.
The SSC cited the DOE Psychologist’s determination that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria
for AUD, Severe, under the DSM-5, the MD’s opinion that the laboratory test results provided
evidence that the Individual engaged in heavy alcohol consumption, and the Individual’s
admission to relying on alcohol to cope with stress in her response to the LOI. Ex. 1. The LSO’s
assertions that the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment and was diagnosed with AUD by the DOE Psychologist justify the LSO’s invocation of
Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(c)–(d).
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) as the other basis for its determination that
the Individual was ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1. “Certain emotional, mental, and
personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of
a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.” Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 27. The SSC cited the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met the diagnostic
criteria for MDD, Recurrent Episode, under the DSM-5. Ex. 1. The opinion of the DOE
Psychologist that the Individual has a condition that may impair her judgment, stability, reliability,
or trustworthiness justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 28(b).
- 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 regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert.
denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting her eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence
to mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In April 2020, the Individual’s husband arranged a medical appointment for the Individual due to
concerns about her wellbeing. Ex 7 at 5; Ex. 10 at 4. During her initial consultation with the
medical provider on May 4, 2020, the Individual reported psychological symptoms including
“fatigue,” “excessive guilt and worthlessness,” “difficulty concentrating,” and an inability to “form
complete thoughts.” Ex. 10 at 22. The Individual also reported that she engaged in multi-day binge
drinking episodes two to three times each month, despite wanting to stop drinking, and she
believed that her husband and young daughter “would be better off if she wasn’t there.” Id. The
Individual was diagnosed with MDD, Single Episode, Moderate, under the DSM-5 and prescribed
medication. Id. at 17.
The Individual reported improvement of her symptoms and success in abstaining from alcohol in
several follow-up meetings with the medical provider.3 Id. at 12–17. However, on July 8, 2020,
the Individual reported that she was “spiraling down” and had engaged in a “bender” in which she
consumed alcohol “all day for two days . . . .” Id. at 11. At the recommendation of the medical
provider, the Individual began using a journal to track her urges and triggers to consume alcohol.
Id. at 10. The Individual reported having abstained from alcohol in several subsequent meetings
with the medical provider. Id. at 6–10.
3 The Individual discussed with the medical provider “how her insecurities . . . are projected to others, such as her
husband . . . .” Ex. 10 at 16. This insight is relevant to the Individual’s subsequent attribution of her alcohol misuse to
enabling or manipulating behavior by her husband. See infra p. 6.
- 4 -
In September 2020, the Individual engaged in a self-described two-week binge drinking episode
during which she experienced blackouts. Ex. 11 at 2, 24. The Individual’s husband told her that he
was concerned for the safety of their young daughter in her care and that he would leave her if she
did not obtain treatment. Id. The Individual entered inpatient substance abuse treatment on October
6, 2020. Id. The Individual disclosed during her inpatient treatment that she engaged in two-week
binge drinking episodes in which she consumed a 1.75 liter “handle” of vodka or “big box” of
wine every two days, followed by a period of approximately two weeks when she would not
consume alcohol.4 Id. at 16. She also described how she would “start a fight with her husband if
he would not bring her the alcohol she wanted” and that she would consume her husband’s warm
beer out of the garage, despite a medical condition exacerbated by carbonated beverages, if no
other alcohol was available.5 Id. at 44. The Individual told the inpatient treatment providers that
her husband was “very supportive.” Id. at 19.
The inpatient treatment center diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, under the DSM-5. Id.
at 3, 27. While staying at the inpatient treatment center, the Individual participated in group
treatment sessions, individual treatment sessions, alcohol education courses, 12-step study groups,
relapse prevention training, and meditation. Id. at 26–32. The Individual was discharged on
November 5, 2020. Id. at 36. The treatment professionals at the inpatient treatment center
recommended that the Individual transition to a sober living house upon discharge, enroll in an
intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP), and attend ninety Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
meetings in the ninety days following discharge. Id. The Individual rejected the recommendation
to transition to a sober living house, indicated that she would consider enrolling in an IOP, and
committed to attending ninety AA meetings in ninety days and working the AA program. Id.
In March 2021, the LSO issued the LOI to the Individual. Ex. 7. In her response, the Individual
represented that she had experienced significant stress during the early stages of the COVID-19
pandemic while working from home and caring for her young daughter, during which she did not
have in-person contact with family for three months, and that “[t]his stress caused [her] to rely on
alcohol to cope[] and [she] became dependent on it.” Id. at 1. The Individual indicated that she
was not pursuing the aftercare recommended by the inpatient treatment center because she found
the coping skills she learned through treatment and her self-directed pursuit of AA’s 12-step
program to be sufficient to control her symptoms. Id. at 2. The Individual indicated that she had
discontinued the medication prescribed for her MDD and was not experiencing any symptoms. Id.
at 3–4. She represented that she last consumed alcohol on September 27, 2020. Id. at 4.
4 A separate entry in the Individual’s treatment notes indicated that she had consumed half of a handle of vodka or a
box of wine every two days over the prior two years. Ex. 11 at 2. During the hearing, the Individual asserted that the
inpatient treatment center had misconstrued her description of episodic binges as daily consumption of large amounts
of alcohol. Tr. at 121. Even if some of the treatment notes overstated the Individual’s alcohol consumption as she
claims, it would not have affected my decision because the Individual does not dispute that she engaged in binge
drinking episodes that led her to seek treatment. Id.
5 At the hearing, the Individual denied that she reported drinking her husband’s “extra beer” from the garage as the
treatment notes indicate. Tr. at 93, 101–02. I find it highly unlikely that the inpatient treatment center erroneously
noted such a specific anecdote about the Individual’s alcohol consumption, particularly since the Individual admitted
during the hearing that her husband stored beer in the garage. I also find that the Individual’s self-serving denial that
she conveyed this information to the inpatient treatment center weighs against her credibility.
- 5 -
The Individual testified at the hearing that she relapsed in April 2021 and resumed consuming
alcohol after she claimed her husband brought her a 12-pack of alcoholic seltzers. Tr. at 85. On
June 29, 2021, the Individual met with the DOE Psychologist for the clinical interview. Ex. 8 at 2.
During the clinical interview, the Individual falsely claimed that she had not consumed alcohol
since September 27, 2020. Id. at 8; see also Tr. at 89 (reflecting the Individual’s testimony at the
hearing that she untruthfully reported to the DOE Psychologist that she had not consumed alcohol
since September 2020 because she “was ashamed”). She also identified herself as an alcoholic and
represented that she “can’t have that one drink.” Ex. 8 at 10.
At the request of the DOE Psychologist, the Individual provided laboratory samples for Ethyl
Glucuronide (EtG) and Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) tests. Id. at 9. The EtG test was negative, which
the MD interpreted as “strong medical evidence that the [Individual] was abstinent from alcohol
during the three days prior to the sample collection.” Id. at 38. The PEth test was positive at a level
of 533 nanograms (ng) per milliliter (mL). Id. Based on the negative EtG test, and the half-life of
the PEth molecule, the MD calculated that the Individual’s PEth level was approximately 799
ng/mL four days prior to the specimen collection. Id. The MD opined that the Individual’s
estimated PEth level was “congruent with very heavy alcohol use” and noted studies finding
comparable PEth levels correlated to daily consumption of five to seven alcoholic drinks. Id.
The DOE Psychologist also administered two psychological tests to the Individual: the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3) and the Beck Depression Inventory-II (BDI-II).
Id. at 3. The DOE Psychologist found that the Individual “provided a valid profile [on the MMPI-
3], without evidence of either over- or underreporting.” Id. at 9. The MMPI-3 test results showed
“a number of elevated scales related to lack of energy or pleasure, excessive worry, and feeling
disassociated from others.” Id. at 9. The Individual “endorsed very few symptoms associated with
Depression” in her response to the BDI-II. Id. at 9. In addition to the psychological test results, the
DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual’s “sad and tearful presentation during [the clinical
interview], [] deprecating self-references, and [] descriptions of feeling isolated and lonely are
consistent with symptoms of depression.” Id. at 11.
On July 11, 2021, the DOE Psychologist issued her Report in which she determined that the
Individual met the diagnostic criteria for AUD, Severe, and MDD, Recurrent Episode, Moderate,
under the DSM-5. Id. at 11–12. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual
demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation from AUD by participating in an IOP of appropriate
intensity for at least twelve weeks, followed by aftercare for at least nine months. Id. at 12. She
further recommended that the aftercare include individualized counseling and at least three AA
meetings weekly, and that the Individual demonstrate her abstinence from alcohol through bi-
monthly PEth tests. Id. Regarding the Individual’s MDD, the DOE Psychologist recommended
that she be re-evaluated for medication and receive counseling. Id.
In October 2021, the Individual’s husband filed for divorce. Tr. at 80, 97–98. The Individual
provided two blood samples for PEth testing pursuant to court orders related to the divorce. Id. at
98–99, 105. According to the Individual, the results of the first PEth test from an early-December
- 6 -
sample were negative. Id. at 99. However, the results of the second PEth test from a mid-December
sample were positive.6 Id. at 98, 105.
In November 2021, the Individual was evaluated by a substance abuse treatment center and
enrolled in an IOP. Ind. Ex. 1. During an intake evaluation, the Individual reported having
consumed one box of wine every three days until October 18, 2021, when she represented that she
stopped consuming alcohol. Id. at 3. The Individual claimed that her husband was “manipulating
her and trying to make it appear that [she] is an active alcoholic and unfit parent.” Id. at 5.
According to the Individual, her husband would “buy[] her alcohol and then judge[] and condemn[]
her for using it.” Id. The Individual expressed “ambivalence about whether she is an ‘alcoholic’”
and asserted that she was forced to accept “that label” by her husband and the inpatient treatment
center. Id.
A social worker employed by the substance abuse treatment center diagnosed her with
“Adjustment Disorder with mixed anxiety and depressed mood.” Ind. Ex. 1 at 17. As part of her
participation in the IOP, the Individual provided samples for eight EtG tests from November 18,
2021, to January 25, 2022, each of which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption. Ind. Ex.
2. The Individual completed the IOP in February 2022. Ind. Ex. 1 at 22; Tr. at 75.
After completing the IOP, the Individual enrolled in counseling. Tr. at 76–77. The Individual
testified at the hearing that this counseling will support her recovery and abstinence from alcohol.
Id. at 80. The Individual has learned techniques, such as positive thinking, identifying and naming
feelings, and calling friends, to manage stress without resorting to alcohol. Id. at 108–09. She
attributed her misuse of alcohol to enabling or manipulative behavior from her husband and
isolation during the COVID-19 pandemic, and she believes that the coping techniques she has
learned will allow her to abstain from alcohol in the future. Id. at 77, 80, 100–01. The Individual
has not experienced depressive symptoms since participating in the IOP. Id. at 116–17.
In March 2022, the Individual met with the Individual’s Psychiatrist for a two-hour mental status
examination. Ind. Ex. 4 at 4; Tr. at 17. Based on his review of the Report, the Individual’s records
from the substance abuse treatment center, time and attendance records and performance
evaluations for the Individual, and the information provided by the Individual in the mental status
examination, the Individual’s Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual’s AUD was in early
remission and that it did not impair her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.7 Ind. Ex. 4 at 4–
6. In reaching this conclusion, the Individual’s Psychiatrist relied on, among other things, the
6 The Individual testified that she had not consumed alcohol since October 2021 and that the second test was positive
because the sample was collected through “a different type of blood draw.” Tr. at 99, 105, 118. The Individual did not
identify any foundation for her belief, and has no demonstrated expertise in conducting PEth tests or interpreting their
results. Accordingly, I assigned her claim no weight because her opinion as to why the first court-ordered PEth test
would fail to capture evidence of alcohol consumption from October 2021 while the second PEth test would capture
such evidence is purely speculative.
7 The Individual’s Psychiatrist determined that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for AUD, Moderate, rather
than AUD, Severe, as the DOE Psychologist determined. Ind. Ex. 4 at 5. This difference in the severity of the diagnosis
did not affect my decision as there is no indication that either expert’s treatment recommendations or prognosis for
the Individual’s recovery would have changed had they adopted the other expert’s opinion as to the severity of the
Individual’s AUD. See id. (reflecting the Individual’s Psychiatrist’s opinion that “quibbling about individual
[diagnostic] criteria is moot”).
- 7 -
Individual’s positive employment record, ability to perform her job even during the months in
which she engaged in her heaviest binge drinking episodes, and the absence of medical, criminal,
or other adverse events commonly observed in habitual heavy alcohol consumers. Id. at 5; see also
Ind. Exs. 5–7 (reflecting that the Individual received positive performance reviews during a period
in which she engaged in binge drinking).
At the hearing, the Individual’s Psychiatrist testified that he was “astonished” at the IOP’s focus
on the Individual’s “marital problems as a source of all her troubles,” and that “they did her a
disservice” with this treatment focus. Tr. at 35. He opined that it would be “important for her” to
attend AA meetings to support her recovery. Id. at 43, 45. He also indicated that the Individual
was unduly focused on separating from her husband as resolving her AUD and “not yet persuaded
. . . about actually understanding the dynamics of alcoholism and getting a handle on it.” Id. at 43–
44. However, he opined that the Individual had exercised sound judgment by seeking treatment
and that he would expect her to “get back on the wagon” if she relapsed in the future. Id. at 58, 66.
The Individual’s Psychiatrist determined that the Individual was misdiagnosed with MDD, and
that the DOE Psychologist had failed to consider diagnostic Criterion C for MDD which indicates
that a depressive episode should only be found when “[t]he episode is not attributable to the
physiological effects of a substance . . . .” Ind. Ex. 4 at 6; AM. PSYCHIATRIC ASS’N, DIAGNOSTIC
AND STATISTICAL MANUAL OF MENTAL DISORDERS 161 (5th ed. 2013). He based this conclusion
on the absence of the Individual’s depressive symptoms during her inpatient treatment following
detoxification despite not being administered an antidepressant. Tr. at 32–34; Ind. Ex. 4 at 6–7.
The Individual’s Psychiatrist also noted that the psychological testing administered by the DOE
Psychologist did not support her diagnosis because the BDI-II scales were not elevated and there
were not “impressive elevations of scales usually associated with depression” in the results of the
MMPI-3. Tr. at 32; Ind. Ex. 4 at 6.
The Individual’s Psychiatrist also disagreed with the IOP’s diagnosis of the Individual with
Adjustment Disorder on similar grounds and noted that her psychological symptoms only
reemerged after her relapse in April 2021. Ind. Ex. 4 at 7. The Individual’s Psychiatrist opined that
the Individual did not have a psychological condition that impaired her judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness, and that the Individual’s depressive symptoms could be controlled through a
recovery program for AUD and abstinence from alcohol. Id.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had not demonstrated
rehabilitation or reformation from her AUD and that her prognosis for recovery is “very guarded.”
Id. at 134–35. In furtherance of this conclusion, she opined that the Individual’s participation in
the IOP was “counterproductive” because it enabled her in minimizing her AUD, the Individual
had minimized the severity of her AUD to the Individual’s Psychiatrist, and the Individual’s self-
reported period of abstinence was not reliably substantiated. Id. at 128, 132–34, 136–37. While
the DOE Psychologist acknowledged that the psychological tests that she administered to the
Individual did not produce elevated depression scales, she nevertheless found evidence of MDD
based on elevation of “scales that are concomitant with depression” and the Individual’s
presentation in the clinical interview. Id. at 131–32. The DOE Psychologist opined that the
Individual had “not presented [at the hearing] as depressed . . . in the way that she did when [the
- 8 -
DOE Psychologist] evaluated her,” but that she did not have sufficient information to update the
MDD diagnosis or to offer a prognosis. Id. at 149–51.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G
The LSO’s allegation that the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment and the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with AUD justify the
LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(c)–(d). 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; and,
(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).
The first mitigating condition under Guideline G is not applicable because the Individual’s
problematic consumption of alcohol was frequent, recent, did not happen under unusual
circumstances, and seems likely to recur. The Individual admitted to having used alcohol as
recently as October 2021, tested positive for alcohol use in December 2021, and engaged in
problematic drinking, including numerous binge episodes, for significant portions of 2020 and
2021. Thus, I find that the Individual’s behaviors giving rise to the security concerns under
Guideline G were frequent and recent.
Although the Individual asserts that her misuse of alcohol is unlikely to recur in the absence of the
stress and isolation she experienced during the COVID-19 pandemic and the purportedly
manipulative behavior by her husband, I do not agree. Although stress and isolation during the
initial stages of the COVID-19 pandemic may have influenced the Individual’s drinking habits,
there is no evidence that these factors were present during her relapse following treatment in 2021.
The Individual’s assertion that her husband’s “manipulation” induced her to relapse and engage in
problematic drinking is not supported by the record. The Individual consistently indicated that her
husband was concerned about her problematic drinking and had threatened to leave her if she did
not seek treatment. She reported this to the inpatient treatment center, in response to the LOI, and
to the DOE Psychologist. It was only after the Individual’s husband filed for divorce that she
- 9 -
claimed that he had enabled her alcohol misuse. Based on the timing of the Individual’s changed
account of her husband’s influence on her drinking, and the opinion of the Individual’s Psychiatrist
and DOE Psychologist that the Individual minimized her AUD by attributing fault for her alcohol
misuse to her husband, I do not find her claims regarding her husband credible. Thus, I find the
first mitigating condition under Guideline G inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(a)
The second mitigating condition is not applicable because the Individual has not established a clear
and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence. The Individual’s claimed five
months of abstinence from alcohol prior to the hearing is insufficient to constitute a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption, particularly in light of her history of relapse. The
Individual’s EtG testing from November 2021 to January 2022 is only moderate evidence of her
claimed abstinence because the results of the alcohol testing requested by the DOE Psychologist
showed that the Individual can restrain herself from drinking for several days prior to an EtG test
to produce a negative result even while engaging in heavy alcohol consumption. Moreover, the
Individual’s positive court-ordered PEth test in connection with her divorce in December 2021
calls even this limited period of abstinence from alcohol into question. The Individual’s claimed
period of abstinence is too short and insufficiently supported for me to conclude that the second
mitigating condition under Guideline G is applicable in this case. Id. at ¶ 23(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable because it is undisputed that the Individual relapsed
following inpatient treatment. Id. at ¶ 23(c). The fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable
because the Individual did not pursue aftercare and relapsed following her inpatient treatment.
Although the Individual participated in an IOP, this treatment does not satisfy the mitigating
condition because both the DOE Psychologist and the Individual’s Psychiatrist described the
program as ineffective and counterproductive to the Individual’s recovery. Moreover, the
Individual has not actively participated in AA as recommended by the Individual’s Psychiatrist
and, for the reasons described above, has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
modified consumption or abstinence. Thus, the fourth mitigating condition under Guideline G is
inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
The Individual does not dispute that she engaged in binge drinking episodes and relapsed after
treatment. Both the Individual’s Psychiatrist and the DOE Psychologist agree that she meets the
diagnostic criteria for AUD, and the Individual has not fully complied with the DOE
Psychologist’s treatment recommendations or attended AA meetings which the Individual’s
Psychiatrist opined would aid in her recovery. She has also failed to demonstrate a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence. Accordingly, I find that the Individual
has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
B. Psychological Conditions
The DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual meets the diagnostic criteria for MDD under
the DSM-5, and that this condition may impair her judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, raises security concerns under Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b). An
individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline I if:
- 10 -
(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;
(c) [a] recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government [indicates] that an individual’s
previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of
recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability; or,
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a)–(e).
The Individual disputes the accuracy of the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis and has not pursued
any treatment for MDD since October 2020. Thus, the first three mitigating conditions under
Guideline I are inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 29(a)–(c).
The Individual’s Psychiatrist’s opinion that the DOE Psychologist misdiagnosed the Individual by
attributing the effects of the Individual’s alcohol consumption to symptoms of MDD, and ignoring
a DSM-5 diagnostic criterion which requires that episodes of depression “not [be] due to the direct
physiological effects of a substance” in order to constitute a symptom of MDD, is plausible. His
opinion that the results of the psychological testing administered by the DOE Psychologist, which
were not fully supportive of her diagnosis, were evidence that the Individual was not suffering
from MDD is likewise not without merit.
However, “[a]ny doubt as to an individual’s access authorization eligibility shall be resolved in
favor of the national security.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Establishing that the DOE Psychologist’s
diagnosis of the Individual was not unimpeachable falls short of meeting the Individual’s heavy
burden. The DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual used alcohol to control the symptoms
of her MDD is not without support in the record and is a plausible interpretation of the information
that the Individual provided to her and to treatment providers.
Faced with two plausible expert opinions, and in light of the DOE Psychologist’s testimony at the
hearing that her opinion concerning the Individual’s MDD is unchanged, I find that the Individual
has not established that the security concerns related to her diagnosis are resolved or that there is
no indication of a current problem. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(d)–(e). Therefore, I conclude
that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline I.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns 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 the testimony and other evidence presented at the
- 11 -
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 restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals