PSH-22-0049

*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: February 2, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0049
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 19, 2022
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX(hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the 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 not be restored.
I. Background
On November 28, 2020, the Individual was hospitalized for alcohol-induced liver disease. Exhibit
(Ex.) 5 at 1; Ex. 9 at 2. Her medical providers advised her to abstain from alcohol use. Ex. 5 at 1.
She abstained from using alcohol for four months, but then relapsed. Ex. 5 at 1; Ex. 9 at 5. On
April 25, 2021, the Individual voluntarily admitted herself to an inpatient rehabilitation program
(the IRP) whose staff diagnosed her with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe (AUD). Ex. 5 at 1; Ex. 6
at 5; Ex. A at 33. She was released from the IRP on May 30, 2021, and began attending Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings where she obtained a sponsor. Ex. 5 at 1; Ex. 9 at 2-3. On June 7,
2021, her employer conducted a return-to-work interview with her which revealed that she had not
reported her participation in the IRP to the Local Security Office (LSO) or to her employer.2 Ex.
4 at 1-2.
1 An access authorization is defined as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to
classified mater 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 an access authorization or security clearance.
2 The Individual requested disability leave in order to attend to medical issues, but did not reveal that she was entering
the IRP to her employer.
2
Because of the Individual’s hospitalization for AUD treatment, the LSO requested that she undergo
an evaluation by a DOE-contracted Psychiatrist (Psychiatrist), who conducted a clinical interview
(CI) of the Individual on September 2, 2021.3 Ex. 9 at 2. During the CI, the Individual
acknowledged that that she suffered from AUD and needed treatment. Ex. 9 at 8. She reported
that she last used alcohol on April 25, 2021. Ex. 9 at 3. The Individual also reported that she had
been attending Individual counseling sessions on a bi-weekly basis, attending five to six AA
meetings a week, and communicating with her AA sponsor daily. Ex. 9 at 5. While the Individual
denied using alcohol at her workplace, she admitted that she had consumed alcohol during working
hours while she was working from home. Ex.9 at 4. The Individual also admitted that her alcohol
use “decreased her energy, the quality of her work performance and made her less prepared for
work presentations.” Ex. 9 at 4.
The Psychiatrist issued a report of his findings (the Report) on September 10, 2021. Ex. 9 at 1.
In the Report, the Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual met the criteria for AUD, Severe, set
forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Ex.
9 at 9. The Psychiatrist further found that the Individual met the DSM-5 criteria for Generalized
Anxiety Disorder which, he opined, negatively affected her prognosis, and increased her likelihood
of relapse. Ex. 9 at 9-10. The Psychiatrist further opined that, although the Individual was
receiving the appropriate treatment for her AUD, she was not yet rehabilitated or reformed from
her AUD. Ex. 9 at 9. The Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual continue maintaining her
sobriety and participating in her current programs for one year to demonstrate reform or
rehabilitation. Ex. 9 at 9.
After receiving the Report, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing
a Notification Letter to the Individual, informing her that her security clearance was suspended
and 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 the Administrative Judge
in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took
testimony from four witnesses: the Individual, her Psychotherapist (the Psychotherapist), her
former supervisor (the Supervisor), and the Psychiatrist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-
22-0049 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 11 exhibits, marked as Exs. 1 through
11. The Individual submitted 22 exhibits, marked as Exs. A through V.
The only relevant exhibits submitted by the Individual are Exhibits A, C, D, L, M, N, O, P, Q, and
V.
The Individual’s Exhibit A is a copy of the Individual’s treatment records from the IRP.
3 In addition to interviewing the Individual, the Psychiatrist reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file including
the Individual’s medical records and records from the IRP, and provided for the administration of three tests to the
Individual: the Personality Assessment Inventory (a standardized psychological assessment); a Ethyl Glucuronide
(EtG) urine test (which detects alcohol consumption up to 80 hours prior to the test); and a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)
blood test (which detects alcohol use during the previous 28 days). Ex. 9 at 2-3, 11. Both the EtG and PEth test results
were negative. Ex. 9 at 8.
3
Exhibit C consists of records from an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) which the Individual
began attending on January 10, 2022. Ex. C at 4. In a progress note dated January 19, 2022, an
IOP employee (Employee A) leading a group therapy session reported that the Individual left the
group meeting early and speculated that the Individual might have been consuming alcohol
“because she swayed a little and her eye contact was off.” Ex. C at 14. Employee A also indicated
that the Individual stated that she has been sober since December 8, 2021. Ex. C at 16. On
February 4, 2022, an IOP therapist (Employee B) reported that during her group therapy session,
the Individual “appeared intoxicated” and that the “therapist observed [the Individual] fall out of
her chair and struggle to stand up.” Ex. C at 34. Employee B further stated that the Individual
appeared to be uncharacteristically “loud” and “excited” and left before the session was finished.
Ex. C at 34. On February 9, 2022, Employee B reported that the Individual indicated that she last
used alcohol on December 8, 2021. Ex. C at 36.
Exhibit D consists of several documents, including a “To whom It May Concern” letter dated
March 14, 2022, from the Psychotherapist, several progress notes prepared by the Psychotherapist,
and the Psychotherapist’s curriculum vita. The Psychotherapist’s letter stated that she had been
providing individual psychotherapy to the Individual for “management of anxiety symptoms and
maintaining sobriety from alcohol” since June 2021. Ex. D at 1-2. She further reported that the
Individual has been active in AA, was working on AA’s Twelve Step Program with her sponsor,
has built a strong sober support group, and has engaged in service work. Ex. D at 1. She further
reported that the Individual had started the IOP after experiencing a relapse. Ex. D at 1. The
Psychotherapist’s letter described the Psychiatrist’s Report as “an accurate assessment of [the
Individual’s] history of use and representation of [the Individual’s] personality and capabilities.”
Ex. D at 1. The Psychiatrist notes that while the Individual has “multiple failed attempts to
maintain sobriety” the Individual “never had the appropriate tools, desire, or support to maintain
sobriety” prior to her enrollment in the IRP. Ex. D at 2. The Psychotherapist noted that that after
the IRP, the Individual “has been more willing to maintain recovery” and “seems to be intrinsically
motivated for sobriety and wellness.” Ex. D at 2. A Progress Note dated December 3, 2021,
indicates that the Individual reported that she had relapsed the previous day. Ex. D at 20.
Exhibits L, M, N, O, P, and Q are letters from character witnesses attesting to the Individual’s
good character.
Exhibit V is a laboratory report indicating that a urine specimen provided by the Individual on
January 28, 2022, tested negative for alcohol.
II. The Notification Letter and the Associated Security 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.
In support of this determination, the LSO cited Guidelines G and E of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Under Adjudicative Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), the LSO cited the Individual’s inpatient
treatment for AUD and the Psychiatrist’s finding that she meets the DSM-5 criteria for AUD. This
information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Adjudicative Guideline G. The
4
Adjudicative Guidelines state: “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 Guideline G at ¶ 21. Among those
conditions set forth in the Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern, under
Adjudicative Guideline G, are: “diagnosis by a duly qualified . . . psychiatrist . . . of alcohol use
disorder,” “the failure to follow treatment advice one diagnosed,” and “alcohol consumption,
which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use
disorder.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(d), (e), and (f).
Under Adjudicative Guideline E (Personal Conduct), the LSO cites the Individual’s consumption
of alcohol during her working hours at home and the Individual’s failure to report her inpatient
treatment for AUD to the LSO and her employer until she concluded the IRP, and her misleading
explanation to her employer indicating that she was requesting medical leave, rather than
requesting leave for inpatient substance abuse rehabilitation.4 This information adequately
justifies the LSO’s invocation of Adjudicative Guideline E. Adjudicative Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) provides that “[c]onduct involving questionable judgement, lack of candor, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information. Of special
interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid answers during national security
investigative or adjudicative processes.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among the
disqualifying conditions that can raise a security concern under Adjudicative Guideline E are
“deliberately . . . concealing or omitting information, concerning relevant facts to an employer,
investigator, security official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making
a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination. . ..” and “significant
misuse of Government or other employer’s time or resources.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(b)
and (d)(4).
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
4 DOE Order 472.2 requires that individuals maintaining DOE access authorizations must report “[h]ospitalization for
mental health or treatment for drug or alcohol abuse.” DOE Order 472.2 at Attachment 4. Order 472.2 further provides
that “[a]ll individuals have a specific obligation to report personnel security-related matters as they occur . . ..” Order
472.2 at ¶ 4.v.
5
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. at
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual testified that in August 2020 her primary care physician
recommended that she reduce her alcohol consumption, so she switched from liquor to “hard
seltzers.” Tr. at 38, 84. However, she did not realize that she had an alcohol problem until
November 2020 when she was hospitalized for low magnesium and elevated liver enzymes, which
the doctors attributed to excessive alcohol consumption. Tr. at 43, 84. Her doctors advised her to
discontinue her alcohol use. Tr. at 45. The Individual stopped using alcohol, but she did not seek
any support to help her remain alcohol-free. Tr. at 45-46. She resumed using alcohol in March
2021. Tr. at 45, 48. She then decided to attend the IRP. Tr. at 49. She called her manager and
told him she needed to take four weeks of disability leave “implying that I had a medical need to
be off of work for approximately a month.” Tr. at 50, 104-105. She further testified that her
“medical need . . . was my alcoholism” but admitted that she did not specifically identify
alcoholism as her medical need. Tr. at 50. She noted, however, that alcoholism is a disease. Tr.
at 51.
When she returned from the IRP, she notified the LSO of her IRP attendance. Tr. at 56. The
Individual testified that she was not aware of any obligation to report her IRP treatment in writing
to the LSO. Tr. at 104. While she was in the IRP, she attended her first AA meeting and continued
attending AA meetings upon her release from the IRP. Tr. at 53-54. She has a permanent and a
temporary sponsor. Tr. at 57. Shortly after her IRP release, she began individual counseling with
the Psychotherapist, who diagnosed her with “general anxiety” and AUD. Tr. at 58. After her
release from the IRP, she remained sober for eight months, until she relapsed in December 2021
for three days after she was informed that her security clearance had been suspended. Tr. at 61-
63, 92, 95-96. After her relapse, she decided to attend an IOP. Tr. at 68. She tried two IOPs
which did not feel like the right “fit” for her before finding a third IOP which she described as “a
really good fit.” Tr. at 70. The Individual asserted that her last use of alcohol occurred in
December 2021. Tr. at 71, 116. She testified: “I've made a choice to be sober for my health and
for my life.” Tr. at 72. She further testified that she has a strong support network and that she
attends four or five AA meetings a week. Tr. at 75. She has completed the IOP and has transitioned
to a relapse prevention program that meets weekly. Tr. at 77. She realizes that she will always be
an alcoholic and intends to be an AA member for the rest of her life. Tr. at 79. The Individual
denied that she had been intoxicated during an IOP therapy session as reported in the IOP’s
records. Tr. at 98-99. The Individual testified that, while she was attending the IOP, she had three
random urine tests for alcohol use. Tr. at 100-101, 113. She testified that each of these urine tests
6
were negative, but she admitted that she had not submitted any of them into the Record.5 Tr. at
100.
When the Individual was asked if she had ever consumed alcohol while she was “on the clock,”
the Individual responded by stating “[t]echnically yes” and further explaining that, during the
pandemic, she would consume alcohol while “catching up with emails and things like that” late in
the day, but not when she had to interact with people. Tr. at 40-42. On cross examination, the
Individual was asked: “during your evaluation with [the Psychiatrist], is it true that you indicated
that you had, on occasion, drank while you were teleworking and that was affecting your work as
far as your ability to present presentations and things of that nature?” The Individual responded
by stating: “It didn't directly impact my work. . . . I would have been sharper had I not been
drinking, but fortunately, I'm a good enough worker that it did not impact my ability to actually do
presentations.” Tr. at 85. The Individual then later denied in her testimony that alcohol had
affected the quality of her work performance and admitted that she stated that she consumed
alcohol during work hours during the CI. Tr. at 86.
The Supervisor testified at the hearing that he had supervised the Individual for nine years, ending
in 2018. Tr. at 122-123. His relationship with the Individual is purely professional. Tr. at 123-
124. He never had the impression that the Individual had a problem with alcohol. Tr. at 125. He
testified that the Individual “was always one of the top performers. Tr. at 127. He further testified
that the Individual embodied the values of “safety, integrity, teamwork and excellence” and
“honesty, reliability, and trustworthiness and good judgment.” Tr. at 129.
The Psychotherapist testified at the hearing that she is a licensed psychotherapist who began
treating the Individual on June 8, 2021.6 Tr. at 138. The Psychotherapist agrees with the diagnosis
of AUD, Severe and opined that the Individual is not yet in remission. Tr. at 173, 175. She testified
that the goals of the Individual’s therapy were maintenance of sobriety, building a healthy support
system, mood stabilization, and learning coping mechanisms. Tr. at 139-140. The Individual now
understands the severity of her AUD and is “very motivated” to maintain her sobriety. Tr. at 152.
The Individual has followed her treatment recommendations. Tr. at 156. The Individual has been
attending AA daily and working the AA’s Twelve-Step program. Tr. at 140. The Individual has
developed a strong support system. Tr. at 154. The Psychotherapist opined that the Individual’s
long-term prognosis is “positive” and further opined that the Individual’s prognosis “can be really
good if she continues to maintain treatment, continues to work through her steps and stay open and
honest with her support.” Tr. at 149, 171. The Psychotherapist does not believe the Individual
possesses bad judgment. Tr. at 156. She noted that anxiety is one of the Individual’s “biggest
triggers.” Tr. at 157, 165. The Psychotherapist is working with the Individual to address her
anxiety and believes that the Individual is doing well at addressing her anxiety. Tr. at 157, 167.
The Psychotherapist testified that relapse is very common for recovering alcoholics and that a
relapse is an opportunity to learn, “because if we can gain more insight . . . we can plan for these
5 As discussed above, after the hearing, the Individual submitted Exhibit V, a laboratory report documenting that one
of these three tests was negative.
6 The Individual also attended a women’s support group facilitated by the Psychotherapist. Tr. at 139.
7
types of behaviors and events in the future.” Tr. at 143-145. The Psychotherapist opined that the
Individual responded well to her relapse and showed good judgment by immediately reaching out
for help once it occurred, and her willingness to seek help improves her prognosis.7 Tr. at 145,
149. Since the Individual’s relapse, she has been meeting with the Individual weekly. Tr. at 150.
The Individual has continued to gain insight into potential relapse triggers. Tr. at 150. The
Psychotherapist was unaware that two IOP employees were concerned that the Individual might
be intoxicated while attending two IOP videoconference meetings in early 2022. Tr. at 162-163.
The Psychotherapist agreed that an Individual’s risk of relapse goes down significantly after a year
of sobriety. Tr. at 163-164. She further testified that the Individual has “shown sufficient
rehabilitation and reformation to indicate that her AUD does not present a risk of poor judgment,
unreliability, or lack of trustworthiness.” Tr. at 175-176.
The Psychiatrist testified at the hearing after observing the testimony of each of the other witnesses.
He testified that after reviewing her records and conducting the CI he reached the same conclusion
as the IRP staff: the Individual met the DSM-5 criteria for AUD, Severe. Tr. at 184-188. He had
further concluded that the Individual was neither reformed nor rehabilitated from her AUD, since
she only been sober for six months when he conducted the CI. Tr. at 188, 190. He also concluded
that the Individual’s anxiety disorder negatively impacted her prognosis for her AUD. Tr. at 189-
190. However, the Psychiatrist testified: “I was happy with her progress in treatment and her
commitment to maintaining her sobriety and promoting her recovery.” Tr. at 188. The Psychiatrist
testified that the Individual needed to maintain her sobriety for 12 months to show that she was
reformed or rehabilitated. Tr. at 190. The Psychiatrist opined that while “12 months” is not a
“magic number,” research indicates that relapse risk significantly declines after one year of
sobriety. Tr. at 191. After reading the exhibits submitted by the Individual and hearing the other
witnesses’ testimony, the Psychiatrist opined that his diagnosis and opinion that the Individual had
not been reformed or rehabilitated had not changed. Tr. at 191-192. He further opined that the
Individual’s December 2021 relapse reset the period used to calculate her sobriety. Tr. at 192.
Moreover, he noted, the treatment records from the IOP raise the concern that she may have had
another relapse in February 2022. Tr. at 192. The Psychiatrist opined that, in terms of treatment,
the Individual is doing everything she needs to do to maintain her sobriety. Tr. at 192-193.
However, the Psychiatrist further noted that “there’s loss of control in alcohol use disorder
typically and in this case as well, so people can have great intentions but fail to execute on them.”
Tr. at 200. The Psychiatrist opined that the Individual is presently in early remission. Tr. at 204.
V. Analysis
Guideline G
Both mental health professionals who testified at the hearing agree that the Individual meets the
DSM-5 criteria for AUD, Severe, and this conclusion is consistent with the opinions of other
mental health and substance abuse professionals whose opinions appear in the Record. Moreover,
the Individual has been doing everything she should have been doing to address her AUD, as
discussed at length above. However, the Individual admits that she relapsed in December 2021,
7 The Psychotherapist observed that the Individual appeared to be intoxicated when she informed the Psychotherapist
of her relapse. Tr. at 147-149, 162.
8
approximately four months prior to the hearing and there is evidence in the Record indicating that
she might have relapsed again in January and February 2022.8 Simply put, four months of sobriety
is not a sufficient period to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence to mitigate
the significant security concerns raised by the Individual’s AUD, Severe, especially given her
recent history of relapse.
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that 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; or
(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).
Regarding the mitigating factor described in paragraph 23 (a), the Individual’s last misuse of
alcohol occurred only four months ago. Thus, I cannot find that “so much time” has passed from
her problematic alcohol use to justify application of this mitigating factor. Further given the
Individual risk of relapse I cannot find that there is an absence of doubt concerning the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment.
Given the Individual’s short period of abstinence, four months, none of the mitigating factors
described in paragraphs 23 (b), (c) and (d) are applicable. Despite the Individual’s commendable
efforts at rehabilitation, only four months have passed since the Individual’s last relapse. Without
a proven period of long-term sobriety, there remains a significant relapse risk. Therefore, doubts
remain about her current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment.
8 Moreover, the Individual testified that the IOP performed laboratory tests for alcohol on her on three occasions in
early 2022 which were negative. When the Individual was provided with a post-hearing opportunity to submit
laboratory reports corroborating this testimony, she only submitted one report, Ex. V.
9
Therefore, I find that none of the mitigating factors listed above are applicable in this case.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not mitigated or resolved the security concerns raised
under Guideline G by her AUD and inpatient alcohol treatment.
Guideline E
The Individual exercised significantly flawed judgment when she chose to consume alcohol while
working. This behavior was clearly symptomatic of her AUD. However, she has not shown that
she has been reformed or rehabilitated from her AUD. Moreover, the way the Individual tried to
rationalize this behavior during her hearing testimony rather than acknowledge its problematic
nature indicated her judgment remains flawed.
Similarly, when the Individual testified about her failure to report her in-patient treatment for
AUD in a timely manner, she tried to rationalize that behavior instead of acknowledging her lapse
in judgment. This suggests again that her judgment remains flawed.
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide seven conditions which may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline E. Of these seven conditions, two are relevant to the Individual’s use of alcohol
during working hours.
Paragraph 17(c) provides that mitigation may be established “if the offense is so minor, or so
much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability,
trustworthiness, or good judgment.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(c). However, the mitigating
condition set forth at ¶ 17(c) is not present. The Individual’s use of alcohol during working hours
resulted from a serious lapse in judgment. It did occur during the pandemic lockdown, a unique
circumstance. However, the Individual’s testimony, in which she minimized the importance of
her alcohol use during working hours and failed to acknowledge the problematic nature of this
conduct continues to cast doubt on her reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
Paragraph 17(d) provides that mitigation may be established if “the individual has acknowledged
the behavior and obtained counseling to change the behavior or taken other positive steps to
alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or
other inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur.” Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 17(d). This mitigating condition is not present either. The Individual acknowledges her alcohol
problem and admitted during the CI, that problem led her to drink during working hours. However,
she subsequently attempted to minimize the importance of her drinking during working hours
during her hearing testimony. Moreover, while the Individual has been receiving treatment and
counseling for her AUD, one of the root causes of this behavior, she has not yet shown that this
treatment and counseling have been successful.
Two of the seven mitigating conditions are relevant to the Individual’s failure to report her in-
patient treatment for AUD in a timely manner by omitting the true nature of the treatment she was
receiving. The mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 17(a) is not present since the Individual did not
report her inpatient treatment to the LSO until she was required to do so by her employer. The
mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 17(c) is not present, since the Individual’s omission to her
10
manager and delay in reporting her inpatient treatment were not minor transgressions, and while
it was a one-time occurrence, the Individual’s failure to acknowledge that judgment had lapsed
casts doubt on her current reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not mitigated or resolved the security concerns raised
under Guideline E by her use of alcohol during working hours, her omissions to her manager, and
her failure to report her inpatient treatment to the LSO in a timely manner.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E and G.
After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner, I
find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines E and G.
Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring her security clearance would not
endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
Therefore, the Individual’s security clearance should not be restored. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals