PSH-22-0045

*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: January 31, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0045
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 17, 2022
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, 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’s access
authorization should be restored.
I. Background
A DOE Contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires her to hold an access
authorization. In early April 2021, the Individual was stopped by law enforcement after her vehicle
was observed swerving. Exhibit (Ex.) 9 at 4. Law enforcement also observed a bottle of liquor in
the backseat of the Individual’s vehicle. Ex. 8 at 4; Ex. 10 at 4; Ex. 9 at 5. She was arrested
following a field sobriety test and was released from custody soon thereafter. Ex. 9 at 4-5; Ex. 8
at 2; Ex. 6 at 1; Ex. 7 at 1. The Individual appropriately reported the incident to the Local Security
Office (LSO), prompting the LSO to instruct the Individual to complete a Letter of Interrogatory
(LOI), which the Individual signed and submitted on May 5, 2021. Ex. 7 at 1; Ex. 6 at 1; Ex. 8. As
a result of the responses therein, the LSO instructed the Individual to undergo a psychological
evaluation conducted by a DOE-consultant Psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 10. The DOE
Psychologist produced a report of his findings on July 20, 2021.2 Ex. 10. In forming his opinion,
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 Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) and Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG) urine tests were administered in conjunction with the
psychological evaluation. Ex. 10 at 6. The EtG test detects alcohol up to 80 to 96 hours after any alcoholic beverage
2
the DOE Psychologist relied on the information he obtained in his clinical interview with the
Individual, as well as his review of the Individual’s Personnel Security File, the Individual’s Office
of Personnel Management (OPM) background investigation report, and the Diagnostic Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-V). Ex. 10 at 3-4. The DOE Psychologist opined
that the Individual “does drink habitually or binge consume[s] alcohol to the point of experiencing
impaired judgement.” Ex. 10 at 8. The DOE Psychologist recommended abstinence, treatment
“related to substance abuse[,]” weekly participation in a group therapy program that meets for at
least one hour for a span of four months followed by a relapse prevention program that meets every
two weeks for the span of four months, and twice weekly participation in a support group like
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) for a span of three months. Ex. 10 at 8.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) to the Individual in which it notified her that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security
clearance and that her clearance had been suspended. 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) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification
Letter informed the Individual that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to
resolve the substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. §
710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on her own behalf and presented the testimony of her husband, her AA sponsor (Sponsor),
and her counselor (Counselor). See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-22-0045 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”). She also submitted ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through J. The DOE Counsel
presented the testimony of one witness, the DOE Psychologist, and submitted twelve exhibits
marked as Exhibits 1 through 12.
II. Notification Letter and the Associated Concerns
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security clearance.
That information pertains to Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. Under Guideline
G (Alcohol Consumption), “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those
conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern
are “[a]lcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the
influence…regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use[,]” and “[h]abitual or binge
consumption. Ex. 10 at 6. PEth results higher than 200 ng/mL indicate alcohol consumption of “at least four drinks
per day several days per week.” Ex. 10 at 7. Both test results were positive, with the EtG results indicating that the
Individual had consumed alcohol within the previous four days, and the PEth results indicating that she consumed
about five to seven alcohol beverages per day. Ex. 10 at 6-7. The report noted the discrepancy in the amount of alcohol
the Individual indicated she was drinking and the laboratory results. Ex. 10 at 7.
3
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgement, regardless of whether the individual
is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder[.]” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a) and (c). With respect
to Guideline G, the LSO alleged that on April 4, 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged
with Driving Under the Influence (DUI), Transport an Open Container of Alcoholic Beverage,
Landed Roadways-Maintain Lane/Safe Lane Change and No Driver’s License on Person, after she
consumed six shots of tequila over three to four hours prior to her arrest. Ex. 1 at 1. The LSO
further alleged that on July 12, 2021, a DOE Psychologist evaluated the Individual and opined in
a July 20, 2021, report that the Individual “drink[s] habitually, or binge consumes alcohol to the
point of experiencing impaired judgement[,]” and “plac[es] herself in a position of compromising
judgement or reliability through impairment and intoxication.” Ex. 1 at 1.
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
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. Id. § 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 and Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual did not deny any of the basic facts contained in the Notification
Letter and agreed that her previous pattern of alcohol consumption was “inappropriate.” Tr. at 14,
18-19. She confirmed that prior to her arrest, she engaged in an irregular pattern of binge drinking,3
but has remained abstinent since September 20, 2021.4 Tr. at 20-21, 43-44. On the day of her arrest,
3 During the psychological evaluation, the Individual indicated that in the previous two years, “she would normally
consume alcohol twice a month and would have two to three shots of tequila over a two-hour period.” Ex. 10 at 5. At
the time of the evaluation, she indicated that she had “consumed alcohol on four occasions since the [arrest,] generally
consuming one margarita and one shot of tequila[.]” Ex. 10 at 6.
4 To support of claim of abstinence, the Individual submitted six drug and EtG test results from October 2021 to April
2022. Exs. A-F. All results were negative. Id.
4
the Individual had gathered in her home with several other people, including her husband, and had
consumed approximately six shots of liquor over a three-to-four-hour period. Tr. at 21; Ex. 8 at 1;
Ex. 10 at 4. Both the Individual and her spouse testified that when the guests departed, they began
to argue. Tr. at 21; Ex. 8 at 1; Ex. 10 at 4. The Individual and her husband also testified that their
alcohol consumption had contributed to their poor communication that evening. Tr. at 21-23, 86,
94. As a result of their arguing, the Individual decided to leave and go to her cousin’s home. Tr. at
21; Ex. 8 at 1; Ex. 10 at 4. She lost her way while in route and was ultimately stopped by law
enforcement officials. Tr. at 21; Ex. 8 at 1; Ex. 10 at 4. The Individual was released soon after her
arrest and complied with the terms of her release. Ex. 8 at 4. To resolve her citations, she ultimately
entered into a plea bargain, wherein she was ordered to take a drug and alcohol course, attend a
victim impact panel, pay fines, and submit to a year of random alcohol testing.5 Tr. at 24-25; Ex.
10 at 5. At the time of the hearing, there were no allegations that the Individual had violated the
terms of the agreement. Tr. at 26.
The Individual received the DOE Psychologist’s report in December 2021. Tr. at 48-49. Although
she discontinued drinking for approximately one month after her arrest, she was consuming
alcohol at the time she underwent the psychological evaluation. Tr. at 47; Ex. 10 at 6. She
acknowledged that she had underreported the amount of alcohol she was drinking to the DOE
Psychologist because “[a]t the time[, she] was very ashamed[.]” Tr. at 46. Upon receiving the
report, she began implementing the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations, which included seeing
a Counselor.6 Tr. at 48-49, 56, 85. She disclosed her DUI charge to her Counselor, and together,
they addressed matters that could impact her sobriety, her work, and her marriage. Tr. at 57, 65,
87-88. She began seeing her Counselor in December 2021 and attends sessions with him every
two weeks. Tr. at 59, 64-65. Her Counselor testified that the Individual emailed him a copy of the
DOE Psychologist’s report several weeks prior to the hearing, which he reviewed, and he
confirmed that the Individual has taken steps to address the concerns stated in the report. Tr. at 65-
66, 76-77. He also did not find it unusual that, during the psychological evaluation, the Individual
underestimated the amount of alcohol she was drinking. Tr. at 72. The Individual’s Counselor
opined that the Individual is no longer in denial about her issues with alcohol, that “she was very
good at the onset about being honest[,]” and that she participates appropriately during her
counseling sessions.7 Tr. at 66. He also confirmed that the Individual is “embracing the tenets of
AA” and that she has not endorsed any cravings for alcohol. Tr. at 67, 76. The Individual’s
Counselor maintained that the Individual “seems very determined to remain sober[,]” and that she
has a low risk of relapse because she has added structure to her life and actively works on her
issues. Tr. at 68-69. The Individual’s husband believes that the Individual intends to continue
receiving counseling. Tr. at 87.
5 The Individual attended the victim impact panel in November 2021 and completed the drug and alcohol course in
August 2021. Exs. G and I.
6 DOE Counsel stipulated to the Counselor’s expertise in the field of counseling. Tr. at 9; Ex. J.
7 In his testimony, the Individual’s Counselor diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, In Remission,
along with another diagnosis not at issue in this case. Tr. at 77.
5
The Individual testified that she began attending AA meetings twice a week in December 2021,
becoming a core member of the group and that she takes pride in her participation.8 Tr. at 26-28,
40, 84, 95. She views AA as a “lifetime commitment.” Tr. at 55, 87. The Individual testified that
the AA group she attends also conducts open meetings that the Individual’s husband, from whom
she enjoys strong support, has attended. Tr. at 38-39, 42, 67, 99, 112. Through her AA attendance,
she has met and engaged a Sponsor, with whom she meets every Sunday. Tr. at 27-28, 53, 104-06.
Her Sponsor testified that together, they discuss current circumstances in the Individual’s life and
how those things “relate[] to the disease of alcoholism.” Tr. at 106. The Individual stated, and her
Sponsor confirmed, that she is currently working on Step Four of the Twelve Steps and that she
reaches out to her sponsor when she needs comfort or answers. Tr. at 35-37, 50, 67-68, 107-08.
The Individual’s Sponsor asserted that she visited the Individual at her home prior to the hearing,
providing the Individual with emotional support. Tr. at 92, 108-09. The Individual testified that
she no longer experiences any cravings for alcohol but would call her Sponsor if she did. Tr. at 59,
111. Her Sponsor also testified that the Individual is keeping herself accountable by “correcting
her past” and refusing to make the same choices. Tr. at 107. She also confirmed that the Individual
engages and participates in AA in a meaningful way, that the Individual completes her AA
assignments, and further, that it is her belief that the Individual is not “at any risk for a drink.” Tr.
at 108, 110, 114. In explaining her belief that the Individual is motivated to “pursue and maintain
her sobriety[,]” the Sponsor explained that the Individual “is going to great lengths so that she can
stay sober[]” and that she has seen the Individual do “things [she has] not seen other alcoholics
do.” Tr. at 114.
The Individual stated that since abstaining from alcohol, she has noticed an improvement in her
marriage, which helps motivate her to maintain her sobriety. Tr. at 29, 43, 50-51. Her husband also
confirmed that he has noticed positive changes in their marriage, endorsing the fact that their
communication has improved and that he feels closer to the Individual. Tr. at 86-88. Her husband
also stated that he would be able to observe changes in the Individual’s behavior and their
relationship if she began consuming alcohol again, which would prompt him to ask her to stop her
alcohol consumption. Tr. at 94-95. The Individual’s children also motivate her to remain sober.
Tr. at 54. Further, the Individual testified that she has strong support from her nearby extended
family, has experienced significant weight loss, spends more time with her children and extended
family, and partakes in family get-togethers that do not include the consumption of alcohol. Tr. at
30-32, 50-52, 82-83, 89-90, 92-93, 112-13. The Individual has learned how to avoid alcohol and
places where alcohol is typically consumed, and further, she has learned to move through and past
difficult circumstances using prayer. Tr. at 49-50. The Individual no longer keeps alcohol in her
home, and her husband testified that he is also abstaining from alcohol in support of the Individual.
Tr. at 40, 52, 84, 88. When asked what he would “be willing to do for [the Individual,]” the
Individual’s husband simply stated, “[e]verything.” Tr. at 95. The Individual further testified that
she now engages in her various hobbies, which do not include or involve alcohol consumption. Tr.
at 40-41, 51. The Individual’s husband confirmed that since abstaining from alcohol, the Individual
has been more focused on exercise and their children. Tr. at 85-86, 89-90, 96-98.
Having had the opportunity to listen to witness testimony and review the exhibits, the DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual has “participated in the treatment recommended to her[,]”
8 The Individual submitted AA attendance logs into the record, which indicated that she had attended 25 AA meetings
from December 2021 to March 2022. Ex. H.
6
and that she “seems to have made good progress[.]” Tr. at 117. He further opined that the
Individual has complied with the recommendations that he made for her, and accordingly, the
Individual has shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. Tr. at 117-18.
Accordingly, he described the Individual’s prognosis as “good.” Tr. at 119.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(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 record establishes that the Individual recognized her maladaptive alcohol use and took tangible
steps toward treating the issue. Although she was still consuming alcohol at the time she underwent
a psychological evaluation in July 2021, she began abstaining from alcohol in September 2021,
which is evidenced by the drug and alcohol test results the Individual submitted into the record.
Further, upon receiving the DOE Psychologist’s report in December 2021, she engaged the
services of her Counselor and joined her local AA chapter the same month. Based on the testimony
offered during the hearing, the Individual is committed to and participates appropriately in the AA
program as well as her counseling sessions. Through her efforts, the Individual has also enjoyed
some tangential benefits, like a noticeable improvement in her family life and weight loss, that
motivate her to remain sober. Further, not only does her husband zealously support her efforts to
remain abstinent, but the Individual also has the steadfast support of her Sponsor and her extended
family. Importantly, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual has complied with his
recommended treatment requirements.9 The DOE Psychologist further opined that the Individual has
shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation and that she has a good prognosis. The
Counselor’s assessment was consistent with that of DOE Psychologist’s, in that the Counselor
9 The DOE Psychologist noted in his report that the Individual did “not meet the diagnostic criteria for a [DSM-V]
alcohol use disorder.” Ex. 10 at 8.
7
confirmed that the Individual has implemented the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations, and further,
he opined that the Individual has a low risk of relapse. Accordingly, given the state of the Individual’s
rehabilitation, I find that the Individual has mitigated all Guideline G concerns raised in the
Notification Letter. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b) and (c).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all 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 Notification Letter. Accordingly, the Individual has
demonstrated that restoring her security clearance would not endanger the common defense and
would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s
security clearance should be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals