PSH-22-0021

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-22-0021
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 10, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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 be
granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The DOE employs the Individual in a position that requires possession of a security clearance.
During an investigation, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered information regarding
the Individual’s alcohol use that prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be evaluated by
a DOE-consultant psychologist (“Psychologist”). After the Psychologist completed the evaluation
and provided a report to the LSO, 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 a security concern
under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
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 appointed me as the
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 -
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.
The LSO presented the testimony of the Psychologist. The Individual submitted 31 exhibits,
marked Exhibits A1 through G3. The LSO submitted seven exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through
7.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines as the basis 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 “[a]lcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving
while under the influence,” “[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(a), (c), and
(d). In the Notification Letter, the LSO cited the Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual met
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition, criteria for Alcohol Use
Disorder (AUD), Mild, without evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; the Psychologist’s
conclusion that the Individual habitually or binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired
judgement; and the Individual’s 2015 arrest and charges for alcohol-related offenses that include
Resisting Arrest, Criminal Mischief, Wanton Mischief, and several counts of Misdemeanor
Assault. Ex. 1. The above information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
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 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
2 The LSO’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 169-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 -
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her 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. 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 record includes a report from the Office of Personnel Management (OPM) containing
information regarding the Individual’s past alcohol use, including the information contained in a
2018 Questionnaire for National Security Positions. Ex. 7 at 109. Therein, the Individual reported
that there were several instances where alcohol negatively impacted his life between 2015 and
2018. Id. He also indicated that he consumed alcohol “too much per occasion” but did not engage
in “[c]ontinuous drinking.” Id. at 109-110. He further reported that his employer’s Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) counselor suggested that he seek treatment for alcohol use. Id. at 110.
After speaking with a therapist, he voluntarily began a chemical dependence recovery program,
which he completed in early 2018 despite not following the rules and being dishonest about his
alcohol use. Id. at 110-11, 126.
During a 2019 interview with an OPM investigator, the Individual reported that his alcohol-related
charges stemmed from a night where he drank too much alcohol and blacked out.3 Id. at 124. He
consequently completed a required one-year diversion program. Id. The Individual also told the
OPM investigator that he was currently binge drinking weekly. Id. He explained that he consumed
alcohol because he felt lonely and depressed, and he had not made any changes to stop his
consumption even though his behavior negatively affected his work performance. Id. The OPM
report also includes information provided by the EAP psychologist who treated the Individual
until 2018. Id. at 150. The EAP psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Mild to
Moderate. Id.
The record also includes the 2021 Psychologist’s report, which details the information the
Individual provided during the evaluation. The Individual specifically admitted that he never
disclosed his alcohol use during his completed 2018 chemical dependence recovery program. Id.
at 22. The Individual reported that he was currently seeing a counselor bimonthly who had been
treating the Individual since early 2020 and had diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe. Id.
at 22-23. The Psychologist contacted the counselor, and the counselor reported that the Individual
had been taking a medication to “reduce the euphoria associated with consuming alcohol” as part
of his treatment. Id. at 23. The counselor reported that the Individual was making progress in
therapy; however, the counselor expressed concern over the alcohol consumption the Individual
reported to the Psychologist in the course of the evaluation, which is detailed below. Id.
3 The OPM report indicates that the Individual’s friend contacted Emergency Medical Services (EMS) and the police
due to concern for the Individual’s wellbeing. Id. at 158. When the EMS and police attempted to rouse the Individual,
“[the Individual] became combative and uncooperative with [them],” and the police arrested him. Id.
- 4 -
During the April 2021 evaluation, the Individual reported drinking three times a week. Id. at 23.
Twice a week, he would consume two or three alcoholic drinks over four hours. Id. In the
remaining instance, he would consume six to eight drinks over a five-hour period. Id. He reported
that he becomes intoxicated when he drinks, but only when he consumes six or more drinks. Id.
He also reported driving to bars and drinking up to six drinks before driving home. Id. at 24. The
Individual stated his intent to moderate his alcohol consumption instead of remaining abstinent.
Id. In his report, the Psychologist opined that the reported alcohol consumption before driving
indicated that the Individual operated a vehicle while intoxicated, which indicated impaired
judgement. Id. The Psychologist also noted that the Individual “continues to show a pattern of
binge drinking once per week to intoxication and impairment while on [medication] and
undergoing alcohol counseling.” Id. at 25.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual met the criteria for AUD, Mild, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation. Id. at 26, 27, 28. To rehabilitate or reform the condition, the
Psychologist made the following recommendations. First, that the Individual complete at least six
months of abstinence to provide confidence that the Individual could curtail his consumption. Id.
at 28. Second, that the Individual complete an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) and participate
in the Alcoholics Anonymous 12-step program (AA) for twelve months with documented
attendance. Id. The Psychologist defined participation as attending four AA meetings per week,
having a sponsor, and actively working the steps. Id. at 28. Lastly, the Psychologist recommended
that the Individual document his abstinence with Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory testing
conducted every two months. Id.
Prior to the hearing, the Individual submitted a letter from his psychologist indicating that the
Individual had successfully completed a three-month early recovery group treatment program
(“Group Program”) in September 2021. Ex. C3. The program required abstinence, two group
therapy sessions per week, and periodic individual therapy. Id. Thereafter, the Individual continued
a long-term recovery group treatment program with the same provider, which met weekly and
required a one-year commitment to attendance and abstinence from alcohol. Ex. C8. The
Individual’s psychologist provided a February 2022 letter that stated that the Individual had self-
reportedly remained abstinent for 310 days. Id. The Individual’s psychologist’s most recent
treatment notes indicate that the Individual’s alcohol use disorder was in early remission. Ex. C7
at 2. The record also includes the results of five PEth tests taken by the Individual since August
2021. The test results indicate that the Individual has remained abstinent since the date of the first
test. Exs. F1-F5.
The record also includes a letter from the Individual’s mother. Therein, she stated that she had
encouraged the Individual to obtain counseling and seek treatment for his alcohol use. Ex. G1 at
1. She stated that she has observed his recent abstinence and that she and the Individual’s father
have been supportive of the Individual’s efforts. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual did not dispute the information contained in the record and attempted
to demonstrate a substantial change in circumstances regarding his alcohol use. The Individual
testified that he has not had any involvement with law enforcement authorities since his 2015
arrest. Tr. at 19. He also testified that he agreed to a yearlong diversion program as a result of his
2015 arrest, and all related charges had been expunged. Id. at 19.
- 5 -
The Individual testified regarding his past dishonesty during his 2018 treatment program. Id. at 25.
He now understands that he needs to be honest with his treatment providers to receive the best
treatment. Id. He also asserted that he had been candid throughout the security clearance process
by reporting his previous dishonesty. Id. at 25.
Next, the Individual described his conduct since the Psychologist’s evaluation. The Individual
testified that during the evaluation he believed he could successfully moderate his alcohol
consumption, but he changed his opinion shortly thereafter and decided to abstain for a year. Id.
at 20. He testified that he last consumed alcohol in March 2020. Id. at 21. Then, after a few months
of abstinence, he decided to abstain indefinitely because he noticed significant improvements in
his life. Id. at 20-21. Even though he completed the three-month Group Program in September
2021, he continues with long-term, weekly group treatment, which he also intends to continue
indefinitely. Id. at 21-22, 43. During the treatment meetings, he talks about his triggers and
methods to deal with stress and anxiety, such as meditation, and he explained that the group “helps
with accountability.” Id. at 42-43.
When questioned as to why he began documenting his abstinence with PEth tests in August,
instead of immediately after starting his sobriety, he explained that he had not yet received the
Psychologist’s report and recommendations. Id. at 49. He testified that he took his first PEth test
“a couple days after receiving the report.” Id. at 34. He also testified that the report made him
realize that he had been “on the right path with abstaining from alcohol.” Id. at 33.
Regarding AA attendance, the Individual testified that he began attending meetings in November
2021 based on the Psychologist’s recommendations. Id. at 34-35. He testified that it took him from
August 2021, when he received the Psychologist’s report, to November 2021 to attend his first AA
meeting because he was attending the frequent Group Program meetings and he was nervous about
attending his first AA meeting. Id. at 35-36. He testified that he had since been “going to three or
four [meetings] a week[,]” and he “secured a sponsor” who he meets with once a week. Id. at 22.
He introduces himself at AA by stating he is “an alcoholic.” Id. at 36. He described his sponsor as
supportive, and they discuss alcohol abuse, their experiences, and the AA steps. Id. at 23. The
record includes a letter from the person identified by the Individual as his sponsor, and the letter
corroborates the Individual’s testimony. Ex. G3. The Individual testified that he had been attending
AA meetings three to four times a week since November. Id. at 49.
The Individual described having a more positive disposition. He engages in social activities
including climbing, meeting up with groups to do other activities, and dating. Id. at 22. He also
talks to his parents more. Id. at 23. He feels less anxious and at ease most of the time, and he stated
that his relationships have improved. Id. He testified that he has been able to avoid drinking alcohol
when he goes out to restaurants with coworkers and on holidays by consuming nonalcoholic
drinks. Id. at 24, 44. He testified that he had been abstinent for over ten months, and it has become
easier for him not to think about consuming alcohol. Id. at 45.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual had met the criteria the Psychologist established for
the Individual to address his alcohol use problem and that the Individual had rehabilitated his
condition. Id. at 58, 59. The Psychologist testified that the Individual was “approaching his
- 6 -
recovery . . . in a much more mature fashion” since the evaluation. Id. at 58. He stated that the
Individual had “entered a good recovery process” and was “doing what is asked of him[,]” and he
therefore gave the Individual a good prognosis. Id. at 58. The Psychologist explained that although
he originally recommended twelve months of abstinence with AA, he typically reduces the amount
of abstinence needed to give a positive prognosis when individuals meet the criteria for AUD,
Mild, and their actions demonstrate progress into a good recovery process, such as gaining
awareness of the impact of their behavior and participating in programs such as AA and the
Individual’s Group Program. Id. at 61.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
According to Guideline G, security concerns based on alcohol consumption can be mitigated if
“[t]he 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[.]”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b).
I find that the Individual put forth sufficient evidence to apply the mitigating condition described
in ¶ 23(b). The evidence demonstrates that the Individual acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive
alcohol use because he identified himself as an alcoholic and explained that his life has improved
because of his abstinence from alcohol. These facts demonstrate his recognition and understanding
that his prior alcohol use negatively impacted his life. Furthermore, the record demonstrates that
the Individual has taken significant action to overcome his problem. Since being evaluated by the
Psychologist, the Individual stopped consuming alcohol, he successfully completed a three-month
early recovery treatment program, he has continued to participate in a long-term group recovery
treatment program, he has been attending AA meetings, and he has been working with an AA
sponsor. The record also demonstrates that the Individual changed his mindset around his
treatment by acknowledging the importance of honesty and expressing his intent to remain
abstinent indefinitely. In addition to maintaining sobriety, the benefits of his efforts are evident in
his improved relationship with his parents, who support his abstinence, and his ability to engage
in other activities, including socializing with coworkers and family members, without consuming
alcohol. He has also avoided being arrested for any alcohol-related conduct since 2015. Further
still, the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence by establishing
through testimony and PEth test results that he has remained abstinent since being evaluated by
the Psychologist. And the record demonstrates that the Individual has maintained his abstinence
in accordance with the Psychologist’s treatment recommendations, which resulted in the
Psychologist concluding that the Individual is rehabilitated and has a good prognosis. Accordingly,
I conclude that the Individual has resolved the Guideline G security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
- 7 -
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. 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 find that the Individual has 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 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