PSH-22-0027

*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 9, 2021 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0027
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 21, 2022
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX XXXXX (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, entitled “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully
considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that
the Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In late November 2020, the Individual self-reported that he had been arrested for Driving
Under the Influence (DUI) and having an open container in his vehicle. Ex. 6. In August 2021, the
Individual was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist (Psychologist). Ex. 10. The
Psychologist diagnosed him with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
Due to unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol use, the Local Security
Office (LSO) informed the Individual in a Notification Letter that his security clearance had been
suspended and that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding the
Individual’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. In the Summary of Security Concerns attached
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 14 numbered exhibits (Ex. 1-14) into the record and presented the testimony of the
Psychologist. The Individual introduced 22 lettered exhibits (Ex. A-V) into the record and
presented his own testimony as well as that of three other witnesses. 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 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).
An 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). An 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 the Summary of Security Concerns,
which set forth the derogatory information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility
for access authorization. The Summary of Security Concerns specifically cited Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21.
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the Psychologist’s August 2021 determination that the
Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5),
criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder,2 Severe, in early remission, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1. It additionally cited four alcohol-related incidents
2 The Summary of Security Concerns lists the diagnosis as Alcohol Abuse Disorder; however, this appears to be an
error as the actual diagnosis is Alcohol Use Disorder. Ex 1; Ex. 10.
- 3 -
involving the Individual: a November 2020 arrest for DUI and Open Container, a November 2019
positive result on a random alcohol screening test conducted by his employer,3 a May 1990 arrest
for DUI, and a June 1988 citation for Possession of Alcohol Underage. Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
As stated above, due to unresolved security concerns arising from a self-reported November 2020
DUI citation, the Individual underwent an evaluation with the Psychologist in August 2021. Ex.
10. The Psychologist’s report (Report) noted that prior to becoming employed with a DOE
contractor, the Individual served as a first responder and had “experienced several tragedies
firsthand in the line of duty, as well as significant sleep deprivation at times.” Id. at 3. The
Individual admitted to the Psychologist that he had used alcohol in the past to help him sleep and
that he was using alcohol “to help cope with the stress of his job.” Id. The Report noted that the
Individual believed that “his drinking was problematic for at least the past eight years because he
would be intoxicated in front of his children” and would consume alcohol “for hours…without
thinking about how much he was consuming.” Id.
According to the Report, following the November 2020 DUI, the Individual’s employer required
him to meet with a site psychologist who recommended that the Individual complete an evaluation
with a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP). Id. at 4. In December 2020, the SAP evaluated the
Individual and diagnosed him with Alcohol Use disorder, Moderate. Id. at 5. As such, the SAP
recommended that the Individual undergo an assessment for admission into an intensive outpatient
program (IOP). Id. Approximately one week after the SAP evaluation, the Individual underwent
the IOP assessment and was diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe. Id. As a result, it was
recommended that he complete an inpatient program. Id. The Individual enrolled in the inpatient
treatment program in late December 2020, and despite contracting the COVID-19 virus, he
“participated meaningfully.” Id. After successfully completing the program in March 2021, the
Individual participated in the IOP aftercare program and began attending one to two Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings per week. Id. Additionally, he maintained bi-weekly contact with his
mentor from the treatment program and “regularly talks with three men he met” in the program
with whom “he related well” and who serve as a support system for him. Id.
During the psychological evaluation, the Individual stated that, since his November 2020 arrest for
DUI, he had not consumed “a drop” of alcohol and intended to “remain abstinent for the rest of his
life.” Id. at 4, 6. As part of the evaluation, the Psychologist ordered a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)
test, which was negative, indicating that the Individual had “not been drinking on a regular, heavy
basis within a few weeks of the test and ha[d] not had binge drinking episodes or moderate drinking
within about one week of the test” Id. at 4.
Ultimately, the Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early
remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 7. To demonstrate
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the Psychologist recommended that the
Individual remain abstinent from alcohol for a period of 12 months and undergo two PEth tests
3 The Summary of Security concerns reported that the Individual tested positive for at .07, “which exceeds the admin
control limit of .02.” An examination of the Alcohol Testing Form revealed, however, that the actual result was .007
g/210L. Ex. A. Given that the Individual did not exceed the control limit, I will not address this as an alcohol related
security concern within this decision.
- 4 -
over the 12-month period. Id. She additionally recommended that the Individual continue to
participate in AA meetings at least once a week. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual called, as a witness, a member of his aftercare team (Aftercare
Facilitator). Tr. at 13. The Aftercare Facilitator testified that, even prior to completing the inpatient
treatment program, the Individual called the Aftercare Facilitator to discuss the aftercare program.
Id. at 17. He stated that the Individual is fulfilling all the aftercare recommendations4 and is
regularly utilizing the program. Id. at 18. The Aftercare Facilitator noted that he is “happy with [the
Individual’s] participation” as the Individual speaks “freely” and “openly.” Id. He stated that he
believes the Individual is “doing what he needs to be doing” to remain abstinent from alcohol, and
he has no doubt that the Individual is successfully remaining abstinent. Id. at 22-23.
The Individual also called a peer (Peer) from his inpatient recovery program to testify on his behalf.
Id. at 33. The Peer testified that he and the Individual bonded while in the inpatient treatment
program and have stayed in contact since the Individual completed the program in March 2021. Id.
at 33-34. He testified that after speaking with the Individual, he feels “super inspired” due to the
Individual’s resilience, support of his family, and ability to maintain his sobriety through adversity.
See id. at 36. The Peer felt that he and the Individual have had a positive impact on each other’s
recovery and their “connection” allows them “to help each other out spiritually.” Id. at 37.
The Individual’s next witness was a peer leader (Peer Leader) from the REBOOT Recovery, First
Responder Recovery (REBOOT) program. Id. at 47, 51. The Peer Leader testified that REBOOT
is a faith-based, 12-week course,5 for first responders and their families. Id. at 48. The program
allows first responders to connect with peers who have also experienced trauma. See id. at 47-48.
The Peer Leader stated that “something about that connection and being understood helps people
realize that they’re not broken…we teach them to address the roots of the issue.” Id. She added that
“most of the time when folks come into these courses, the don’t even realize that the symptoms
that they are having are related to years of job service and stress…once they see that there’s the
root of the problem…it gives [them] a place to start [the] healing journey.” Id. at 48.
The Peer Leader testified that she first met the Individual in September 2019 when he attended and
successfully completed the fall 2019 course. Id. at 52, 54. The COVID-19 pandemic hit soon after,
and the course was forced to meet in a virtual setting. Id. at 52. The Peer Leader stated that the
Individual returned to the in-person setting in September 2021, and she “could tell that there had
been a change.” Id. She clarified that she “could just tell by the way [the Individual] was
participating and the way he would speak and engage the group that he realized he had work to do,
and he was willing to do whatever it took to take care of that.” Id.
Along with completing the September 2019 and 2021 REBOOT classes, the Individual successfully
completed a Leadership Training Academy with REBOOT First Responders in 2022. Id. at 54; Ex.
E, Ex. N. The Peer Leader explained that the Leadership Training Academy teaches attendees how
to lead and facilitate REBOOT groups, and how to help someone in crisis, and it provides resources
4 The Aftercare Facilitator testified that the aftercare program recommends 12-18 months of attendance at aftercare
meetings as well as participation in “Twelve Step” meetings, such as AA. Tr. at 25.
5 The Peer Leader noted that the group meets once per week for 12 weeks, and each meeting is approximately two-
and-a-half hours. Tr. at 58.
- 5 -
from the headquarters group. Tr. at 54. The Peer Leader testified that the Individual is in the process
of completing his third REBOOT class, and he now understands the root of his problem, knows
how to address it, and knows he is responsible for his actions. Id. at 58-59, 66. Specifically, she
stated that the program has “made [the Individual] realize that his actions with alcohol stemmed
from his job stress and trauma,” and the Individual has stated that he intends to never consume
alcohol again. Id. at 54, 64
The Individual testified on his own behalf. Id. at 73. The Individual sought to mitigate the Guideline
G security concerns through evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 105. He stated that
in September 2019, he moved into a cabin and was living alone after his wife asked him to leave
their home due to him becoming intoxicated one night. Id. at 77-78, 87. He stated that his wife
asking him to leave was when he realized he needed to “fix some things.” Id. at 79. Although he
had the desire to stop consuming alcohol, the Individual realized that he did not have the tools. Id.
at 82. He explained that he started “soul searching” and found the REBOOT program in the fall of
2019. Id. at 79. However, in November 2020, he stated that he made a “very poor decision to
operate a vehicle…when [he] should not have been driving,” resulting in the DWI. Id. at 76. He
stated that the last time he was intoxicated was the night of his DWI, and the last time he consumed
alcohol was December 23, 2020,6 before he left for his inpatient treatment program.7 Id. at 75-77.
The Individual testified that he entered inpatient treatment in late December 2020, and after
completing that program, he completed an eight-week IOP with aftercare at the same facility. Id.
at 82, 86; Ex. Q. Through REBOOT, the Individual stated that he found people who were like him
as if they spoke a “native tongue.” Id. at 80. He noted that in a group of people who understood
him, he could not “fake it.” Id. He stated that his experiences in the treatment programs and
REBOOT have taught him to “slow down” and adapt to daily routines, something he felt incapable
of doing in the fast-paced life of a first responder. See Tr. at 94. The Individual shared that, in July
2021, his wife was diagnosed with cancer. Id. at 94-95. He stated that, although he was not living
with his family at the time she was diagnosed, his treatment and the REBOOT program helped him
to reconcile with his family and support his wife through her treatment.8 Id. at 95. The Individual
added that he believes his recovery is “a work in progress” and will be ongoing “for the rest of [his]
life.” Id. at 117.
The Psychologist testified, after observing the hearing and listening to the testimony presented, that
she believed that the Individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from
the diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early remission. Id. at 130. She explained that
the Individual had followed all the recommendations that she set forth in her Report, and he has
been “self-motivated to…comprehensively address all of the potential vulnerabilities that he may
have to trigger him to use alcohol” as a coping mechanism. Id. at 132. She noted that the Individual
has participated fully in REBOOT such that he is now able to serve as a peer leader. Id. The
6 Although this appears to contradict his reported alcohol consumption to the Psychologist, given the Individual’s
negative PEth test following the Psychologist’s evaluation as well as his continued abstinence for over one year, I do
find this discrepancy to be significant.
7 The Individual submitted two negative PEth tests dated January 2022 and February 2022. Ex. R, Ex. S.
8 The Individual testified that he also participated in five or six therapy sessions with a trauma therapist and engaged
in marital counseling. Tr. at 109-110. In a letter, the marriage counselor stated that the Individual’s wife indicated that
after completing treatment and REBOOT, the Individual “is now a different person.” Ex. C.
- 6 -
Psychologist added that the Individual has continued his aftercare of his own accord as it is not
required nor did she recommend it. Id.
The Psychologist testified that, although the Individual is not currently attending AA, and
REBOOT is not a replacement for AA, he is using REBOOT, a community, peer support group, in
lieu of substance use, as a means for coping with trauma. Id. at 134. She clarified that, in the
Individual’s particular case, because he had consistently acknowledged the problematic role of
alcohol in his life, she was satisfied with his participation and engagement in this peer support
group. Id. at 135. She opined that the Individual had a “excellent” prognosis and is now considered
to be in full remission. Id. at 135, 137.
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 granting 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.
Guideline G
Regarding Guideline G, a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder by a duly qualified medical or mental
health professional, including a clinical psychologist, is a condition that could raise a security
concern and may disqualify an individual from holding a security clearance. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 22(d). An Individual’s failure to follow treatment advice once he is diagnosed, or
the consumption of alcohol which is not in accordance with a treatment recommendation, after a
diagnosis of alcohol use disorder, may disqualify an individual from holding a clearance. Id. at
¶ 22(e), (f). Additionally, alcohol-related incidents away from work could raise a disqualifying
security concern. Id. at ¶ 22(a). If 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 Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, in early
remission. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (d). Since his DUI arrest in November 2020, the
Individual has successfully completed both an inpatient and outpatient treatment program as well
as the accompanying aftercare. He has fully engaged in the REBOOT program and has completed
the leadership course so that he is able to help others who find themselves coping with trauma in
unhealthy ways. The Individual has remained abstinent for over a year, even throughout the
hardship of his wife undergoing cancer treatment, and he has offered laboratory testing to support
his claims of sobriety in the form of two PEth tests. Id. at ¶ 23(b). Furthermore, the Psychologist
testified that the Individual has demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation
and is now in sustained remission from the alcohol use disorder. See id. at ¶ 22(d).
- 7 -
I find the Individual’s commitment to his recovery to be genuine. He has undertaken a journey of
recovery, learning to cope with trauma sustained while serving his community in a healthy manner.
He is now using his experience to again serve others by helping them address their trauma and
uncover healthy coping mechanisms. As a result of the Individual’s progress through his treatment
programs, participation in aftercare, and engagement in peer support, I find that the Individual has
mitigated the Guideline G security concerns.
VI. Conclusion
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 have found that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that
restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly
consistent with the national interest. Therefore, 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