PSH-22-0073

*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: March 28, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0073
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: August 5, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be
granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by the DOE in a position that requires possession of a security
clearance. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered concerning information regarding
the Individual’s alcohol use. The information prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be
evaluated by a DOE-consultant Psychiatrist (“DOE Psychiatrist”). Afterward, 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 (SSC), the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns 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
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
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 -
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of four witnesses, including a
psychologist, and testified on his own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychiatrist. The Individual submitted twenty-one exhibits, marked Exhibits A1 through H.2 The
LSO submitted seven exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 7.3
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. Exhibit (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 “[h]abitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder[,]”
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(c) and (d). The SSC cited the
DOE Psychiatrist’s April 2021 conclusion that the Individual had habitually consumed alcohol to
the point of impaired judgment and met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fifth Edition (DSM-5), criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1. The cited 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 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).
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 Exhibit H was received after the hearing, and it is a letter from the Individual’s physician.
3 The LSO’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 170-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
In 2020, the Individual disclosed in a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) that
he completed as part of the security clearance process that he had been hospitalized in 2017 due,
in part, to his alcohol use. Ex. 7 at 93. His disclosure stated that after the hospitalization, he
engaged in an alcohol outpatient treatment program (“Outpatient Treatment”) for approximately
a month, and he then left the program against medical advice. Id. at 126. During a subsequent
investigation conducted by the U.S. Office of Personnel Management (OPM), the Individual
explained to the OPM investigator that he left Outpatient Treatment before completing it because
he did not believe it was addressing his depression, the underlying cause of his alcohol
consumption. Id. at 108. He also disclosed that “drinking . . . made his depression worse.” Id. at
127. The record includes Outpatient Treatment information obtained by the OPM investigator that
documents the Individual’s reported daily alcohol consumption as eight to fifteen shots of whiskey.
Id.
During his 2021 evaluation with the DOE Psychiatrist, the Individual reported that his alcohol
consumption increased in late 2016 due to the onset of depressive symptoms, and he acknowledged
that he had been “probably drinking more than [he] should have[.]” Ex. 5 at 21. The DOE
Psychiatrist reported that the Individual’s medical records demonstrate that he had been diagnosed
with Major Depressive Disorder, Moderate, Recurrent, in 2017 after being “hospitalized for acute
cardiac problems and suicidality[.]” Id. at 29. Months later, the Individual was again hospitalized,
this time involuntarily, after he experienced an “alcohol-induced blackout” during which he
contacted his mother and “expressed that he was experiencing thoughts of ending his life.” Id. at
30. In the months preceding his first hospitalization, he had attempted to take “gap” days from
consuming alcohol, which were occasionally unsuccessful, and experienced diminished control
over his drinking and associated guilt. Id. at 21. He reported that he had consumed alcohol to
relieve his feelings of depression. Ex. 5 at 22. The DOE Psychiatrist noted that the Individual
provided conflicting information regarding his alcohol consumption in 2017; for example, he
reported consuming one bottle of wine per day and occasional shots of whisky instead of the eight
to fifteen shots of whiskey disclosed in his medical records. Id. He attributed the discrepancies to
a lapse in recall. Id.
The Individual also described his prior treatment for alcohol use during the evaluation. First, he
identified how his alcohol use had impacted his life and career and how his mother and sister
expressed concern and asked him to seek treatment in 2017. Ex 5 at 23-24. As result, he engaged
with his employer’s employee assistance program (EAP) and attended several Alcoholics
- 4 -
Anonymous (AA) meetings before participating in the intensive Outpatient Treatment.4 Id. As part
of his treatment, he was prescribed Antabuse, which deters alcohol consumption by producing a
“rather severe physical reaction when alcohol is consumed[.]” Id. at 25. He admitted that, during
Outpatient Treatment, he occasionally consumed wine at dinner by intentionally discontinuing
Antabuse, which he disclosed to the treatment provider. Id. at 24. He did not receive any additional
treatment for alcohol use after he “left the program against medical advice and declined
recommendations for additional treatment.” Id. at 25.
The Individual told the DOE Psychiatrist at the time of the evaluation that he did not need any
form of treatment for his alcohol consumption. Id. at 24. He also stated that he had been consuming
approximately one to one and a half beers once per week since 2017. Id. at 26. The Individual
underwent a urine ethylglucuronide (EtG) and a blood phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test as part of
the evaluation. Id. at 27. Both tests were for the purpose of detecting past consumption of alcohol,
and both test results were negative and therefore consistent with the Individual’s reported recent
alcohol consumption. Id. He stated that while his family was “not thrilled” that he had continued
to consume alcohol despite having a problem with it in the past, he believed his alcohol
consumption was reasonable and completely controlled. Id. at 26.
The DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual suffered from AUD, Severe, without
rehabilitation or reformation because the Individual continued to “suffer from Severe Alcohol
Dependence,” he had consumed alcohol during his 2017 abstinent-based Outpatient Treatment, he
prematurely ended the treatment program, he had not received any additional treatment or
monitoring, he reported consuming alcohol to intoxication in 2017, and he continued to consume
alcohol despite acknowledging his prior use was problematic and contributed to the onset of or
exacerbated his “most recently experienced major depressive episode.” Id. at 31. The DOE
Psychiatrist also concluded that the Individual had, through 2017, habitually consumed alcohol to
the point of impaired judgment. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist provided the following
recommendations. The Individual should maintain sobriety for twelve months. The Individual
should also participate in a substance-based aftercare program for six months; attend and fully
participate in a peer-based support program, such as AA, at least twice a week for one year; and
receive random EtG and two PEth tests over the same period. Ex. 5 at 31-32.
The record includes a report provided by a psychologist (“Psychologist”) who conducted an
evaluation of the Individual several months after the DOE Psychiatrist. Therein, the Psychologist
provided his opinion after reviewing the Individual’s reported personal history and alcohol use.
Ex. D. The Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, In Sustained Remission. Id.
at 7. The Psychologist recounted that the Individual described his 2016 alcohol use to be “at least
a bottle of wine per night” with the intent to become intoxicated. Id. at 5. The Psychologist cited
favorably the fact that the Individual disclosed his alcohol use to providers while in Outpatient
Treatment. Id. at footnote 1. He reported the Individual’s statement that, after the Outpatient
Treatment, he had “a very long history of having one beer at times” without any problems. Id. The
Individual also reported abstaining from alcohol and attending weekly AA meeting by video
teleconference since receiving the DOE Psychiatrist’s report. Id.
4 He did not obtain a sponsor in AA, nor did he work through the AA 12 Steps. Ex. 5 at 24.
- 5 -
The Psychologist explained in his report that consuming alcohol after a diagnosis of AUD does
not necessarily indicate a relapse within the DSM-5. Id. at 8. Rather, a relapse occurs “only if the
consumption leads the [person] to meet one of the 11 criteria of alcohol use disorder.” Id. The
Psychologist stated that the Individual “did not become psychologically addicted to alcohol,” and,
after Outpatient Treatment, “did not resume his regular consumption of excessive amounts of
alcohol.” Id. at 9. The Psychologist opined that, after “completing the alcohol education portion of
the recovery program he attended[,]” “[a]dditional treatment would provide no further preventative
benefit.” Id. The Psychologist referenced the Individual’s reported outstanding work performance,
his decision to work in the office during the pandemic, and his physical training regime as factors
that substantiate the Individual’s claim of overcoming his alcohol problem. Id. at 11. The
Psychologist concluded that the Individual had remained free from his alcohol problem for over
four years by the date of the evaluation, but stated that a PEth test at monthly intervals would
“leave no stone unturned in verifying” that the Individual is “free from any impairment” from
alcohol. Id.
At the hearing, a work colleague of the Individual testified that, in the last year preceding the
hearing, they had participated in three to four after-work social events together where the
Individual did not consume alcohol while other participants consumed alcoholic beverages. Tr.
17-18. This colleague considered the Individual reliable and trustworthy. Id. at 15, 20-21. A friend
who engages in a regular, physically demanding outdoor activity with the Individual outside of
work similarly testified that he observed the Individual refrain from consuming alcohol at an event
in the last year, and he considers the Individual to be reliable and trustworthy. Id. at 29, 35-38.
The Individual’s sister testified that she and the Individual see each other twice a year, and they
communicate weekly. Id. at 51. She testified that she was not aware of the extent of the Individual’s
alcohol use in 2017, but she did know that he was “using alcohol” during that period. Id. at 55.
She testified that she visited with the Individual in-person three times in the previous year leading
up to the hearing. Id. at 56. Two of the visits lasted for an entire week, and two of the visits were
during the holiday season. Id. The sister testified that they shared most meals together during the
visits, and she never observed the Individual consume alcohol. Id. at 56-57, 60-61, 62-63. She
testified that the Individual told her more recently that he has been “pursuing this healthy lifestyle
. . . with physical exercise[,]” which was “one of the steps that he’s taking . . . to avoid” his issue
with alcohol use. Id. at 63. She testified that she would be a support to him if she believed he was
feeling depressed or struggling. Id. at 67-68. She was not aware that he had been participating in
AA. Id. at 65.
The Individual testified to the following. He confirmed that he “absolutely abused alcohol” during
2016 to 2017 because he was upset about aspects of his life. Id. at 84-85. He also confirmed that
he left Outpatient Treatment against the treatment provider’s recommendations because he
believed they were not treating his depression. Id. at 148, 167. However, he could not recall
whether he was discharged or withdrew from the program. Id. at 168. He stated that he last
consumed alcohol to intoxication in November 2018.5 Id. at 97. The Individual testified that a
wakeup call occurred in 2017 when he was required to take medication for high blood pressure as
a result of his alcohol consumption. Id. at 153. He believed that his alcohol use also put him at risk
5 This date differs from the DOE Psychiatrist’s report, which listed 2017. See supra.
- 6 -
for a stroke and gave him a heart condition. Id. at 164. The record shows that, in approximately
2019, the Individual reduced his consumption to one beer a week.6 Id. at 98-99. He then completely
stopped consuming alcohol after he received the DOE Psychiatrist’s report in July 2021. Id. at 99.
Prior to the evaluation with the DOE Psychiatrist, he believed that one could be sober so long as
they were not consuming alcohol to intoxication. Id. at 95. After receiving the DOE Psychiatrist’s
report, he recognized that he had misjudged the gravity of his alcohol use in the context of
possessing a security clearance. Id. at 100. He is a lot more comfortable and in a “100 percent
mentally different place.” Id. at 86, 87. He deals with emotional setbacks by “walk[ing] it off” or
turning to physical activity. Id. at 91. He addresses stressful situations such as experiencing grief
by working his way through them and leaning on people for support. Id. at 110, 111- 12. He stated
that he is accountable for his abstinence to his friends, his family, and his work colleagues. Id. at
146.
The Individual testified regarding his participation in AA. He started “calling” into AA meetings
on Saturday evenings because it was “really good enforcement for not having a beer with dinner[,]”
which had been his once-a-week pattern. Id. at 101. He confirmed that he had not attended AA
twice a week, as was recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at 169. He stated that “it’s a
failure on [his] part[,]” and that he “should have been going to the second one.” Id. at 169. He
testified that Saturdays were also a good opportunity for AA because “work is pretty busy.” Id.
However, he stated that he would not “make excuses” because “you find time for the things you
need.” Id. He explained that he called in late for AA because he is introverted and “scared to get
called on in groups[,]” but he would participate if called upon. Id. He explained that he did not
obtain an AA log-in sheet documenting his attendance because he had difficulty connecting by
video. Id. at 143-44. He had not “worked” the AA Steps in the “official sense[,]” but he did employ
the steps in his daily life. Id. at 142. He attempted early on in his sobriety to obtain a sponsor, but
he felt that it would be disingenuous to ask for sponsorship since he did not have any trouble
remaining abstinent and he was not experiencing any of the challenges “that would require a
sponsor[.]” Id. at 120. He stated that the intended to continue attending AA “as long as needed[,]”
and he is fully committed to lifelong sobriety. Id. at 105.
The record includes the results of five ethanol blood tests taken by the Individual between August
2021 and June 2022. Ex. C; Ex. E. All results were negative. Id. The Individual explained that he
requested “blood alcohol tests” in an attempt to be responsive to the DOE Psychiatrist’s
recommendations. Id. at 124-25. He testified that he was unable to enroll in random testing because
his health care provider did not give random tests. Id. at 123. He also specifically requested a PEth
test ahead of the hearing, which he had to obtain from a different provider because it was not
offered through his regular provider. Id. at 124-25. He testified that he made a good faith effort to
comply with the recommendations. Id. at 136. He confirmed that he did not show the DOE
Psychiatrist’s report to his medical provider. Id. at 137. He also confirmed that he did not reach
out to his employer’s EAP in order to obtain testing that would be consistent with the DOE
Psychiatrist’s recommendations. Id. at 138.
The Individual testified that he did not follow the recommendation to attend aftercare. Id. at 126.
He explained that he believed that it would have been challenging to enroll in the program with a
6 This differs slightly from the reported consumption of one to one and a half beers per week documented in the DOE
Psychiatrist’s report. See supra.
- 7 -
“one beer a week habit[,]” and he questioned whether he would have been accepted. Id. He chose
to not pursue an aftercare program because he believed it was not necessary given his recovery.
Id. at 126-27, 145-46. He also stated that work was “extremely busy” at that time, although he
stated that he did not want to offer that as an excuse. Id. at 170. He expressed that he would have
done it if it had been necessary to “get well[.]” Id. at 171. He confirmed that he received the report
from the Psychologist in November 2021. Id. at 175. He testified that it was “freeing” to have “it
documented that [he] was in remission” and “doing the right things[.]” Id.
The Psychologist testified after considering the testimony of the Individual and the Individual’s
witnesses and stated his opinion that the Individual’s AUD remained in sustained remission with
an excellent prognosis. Id. at 187-88. He opined that the Individual’s efforts demonstrated that he
has “learned his lesson about alcohol” and that he would use “a more appropriate means of seeking
help” if he were to become depressed in the future. Id. at 188. The Psychologist testified that the
Individual did not need to attend AA because the Individual believed he had resolved his problem
and the Psychologist did not find a basis to conclude otherwise. Id. at 201.
The DOE Psychiatrist’s testimony differed from the Psychologist in concluding that the Individual
had not demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation of the condition. The DOE Psychiatrist gave
the Individual a “fair to decent” prognosis after first stating that the prognosis was unclear. Id. at
230-31. The DOE Psychiatrist explained that Individual’s AUD had not been in remission under
the DSM-5 criteria at the time of the initial evaluation because the Individual continued to consume
alcohol despite his diagnosis of “recurrent major depression.” Id. at 213-14, 2015. The DOE
Psychiatrist further noted that the Individual continued his alcohol consumption even though his
AUD “caused significant personal distress, health consequences necessitating a hospitalization[,]
. . . . [and] caused all sorts of chaos in his life[.]” Id. at 215-216. Finally, the DOE Psychiatrist
concluded that the Individual had not complied fully with any of his recommendations. Id. at 220.
The DOE Psychiatrist explained that the Individual did not demonstrate that he had participated in
any “methodical, structured way working through the [AA] Twelve Steps.” Id. at 220. The
Individual did not enroll in random EtG testing, nor had he obtained two PEth test results. Id. at
222-23. The DOE Psychiatrist explained that the submitted ethanol blood test results could only
detect consumption that occurred within a four-to-six-hour period. Id. at 221-22. Furthermore, the
DOE Psychiatrist opined that, even if the Individual has been “fully sober” for “11 or 12 months
time” and meaningfully participating in weekly AA, the recommendation would still be to increase
AA participation to two times per week and to participate in PEth testing and random EtG testing
for at least another six to twelve months. Id. at 226. He stated that the Individual “has not embraced
the fact that he has a chronic condition and that he needs support to help maintain sobriety.” Id. at
232. The DOE Psychiatrist also opined, assuming the Individual’s report of almost a year of
abstinence is true, that his risk of relapse is “low to moderate.”7 Id. at 232.
7 The DOE Psychiatrist also noted that the Individual’s history of depression, given that it exacerbated his alcohol
consumption, placed “him at heightened risk for [consuming alcohol] again.” Id. at 233.
- 8 -
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(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.
First, I conclude that ¶ 23(c) and (d) do not apply to resolve the concern. Regarding ¶ 23(c), the
Individual has not been participating in a counseling or treatment program other than attending
AA once week, and he previously failed to complete an abstinent-based treatment program in 2017
after he consumed alcohol during the program and disregarded the advice of treatment providers.
Furthermore, ¶ 23(d) is inapplicable because the Individual has never successfully completed a
treatment program or attended aftercare.
I further conclude that the Individual failed to bring forth sufficient evidence to apply ¶ 23(a) and
(b) to resolve the Guideline G security concerns. Because I rely upon much of the same evidence
in analyzing these two mitigating factors, the following analysis addresses them together. The
Individual admitted his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use by confirming that he used to have a
problem with alcohol, and it is clear that he regrets using alcohol in order to address his depression
back in 2017. He also provided evidence that he has since turned to regular, intense physical
activity as a means to deal with feelings that previously contributed to his alcohol consumption,
and he stopped consuming alcohol and began attending weekly AA sessions almost one year
before the hearing. He also put forth evidence that he manages negative feelings by working
through them or reaching out to friends and family for support. While this evidence weighs in
favor of mitigation, it does not overcome the following evidence in the record that leaves me
concerned about his current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment.
- 9 -
First, the record establishes that the Individual does not accept that he has a problem with alcohol.
He testified to this fact, and his actions before and after receiving the DOE Psychiatrist’s report
demonstrate the same. For example, he continued to consume alcohol against the advice of the
Outpatient Treatment providers, and he refused the recommendation that he continue treatment in
aftercare, again substituting his judgment for that of the treatment providers. Even after receiving
the DOE Psychiatrist report, he refused to enroll in the recommended aftercare, attend the
recommended number of AA meetings, or seek an AA sponsor. Although the Individual obliquely
offered his busy schedule as an excuse, the record is clear that he did not prioritize following the
DOE Psychiatrist’s recommendations. At least with respect to the AA participation, he admitted
that his failure was a mistake.
Despite the Individual’s belief that his problem with alcohol had long since been resolved at the
time he was evaluated by the DOE Psychiatrist, the DOE Psychiatrist credibly established that the
Individual’s AUD was not in remission until the Individual reportedly became completely
abstinent because the Individual had continued to consume alcohol, even to the point of
intoxication, knowing that his depression and physical health had been seriously impacted by his
alcohol use. The DOE Psychiatrist established that the Individual’s continued consumption
perpetuated the diagnosis of AUD, Severe, and I accept the DOE Psychiatrist’s conclusion on this
point over that of the Psychologist.8
Furthermore, the actions the Individual took over the last year, including his reported abstinence,
were not in accordance with the treatment recommendations provided by the DOE Psychiatrist.
The Individual refused to attend aftercare, which I find concerning because it demonstrates a
failure to prioritize addressing his AUD given the severity of the diagnosis. Furthermore, it reflects
negatively on his judgment that he decided to avoid attempting to enroll in aftercare, despite his
previous experiences with Outpatient Treatment and EAP, because he felt it would be
disingenuous. I also find it concerning that his judgment led him to conclude that he would be
unable to enroll despite his diagnosis and a recommendation from a clinical psychiatrist.
I also find concerning that, not only did the Individual decline to attend two AA sessions per week
as recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist, but he intentionally appeared late to the one weekly
session he did attend, specifically to avoid fully participating. I remain doubtful regarding his
explanation that his failure to formally document his attendance was due to his inability to figure
out, over approximately a year’s time, how to participate remotely by video.9 And I do not find
that his introversion is an excuse to avoid following treatment recommendations.10 His conduct is
not reflective of good judgment or a “good faith effort.”
8 In making my decision, I note that the Psychologist did not adequately explain why the Individual’s continued alcohol
use despite the diagnosis of depression and the apparent link to consumption did not invoke the related DSM-5 criteria.
See Tr. at 146.
9 Even the Psychologist expressed surprise that the Individual had participated merely by telephone instead of video
by stating “I didn’t know that was possible.” Tr. at 192.
10 I also note that the record is devoid of evidence of any effort on the Individual’s part to determine alternative
treatment option that would accommodate his introversion.
- 10 -
Lastly, I find concerning that the Individual was apparently incapable of obtaining the random EtG
testing or PEth testing recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist. There is no question that the
Individual read the DOE Psychiatrist’s report and recommendations. Furthermore, the Individual
had the additional benefit of the Psychologist’s explanation of the value of PEth testing. However,
despite the information in both evaluative reports and his prior experience with EAP and
Outpatient Treatment, he testified that he believes his conduct represents a good faith effort to
comply with the recommendations. Not only do I question the candidness of his testimony on this
point, but it represents one more instance of behavior consistent with his pattern of partial
compliance or rejection of treatment recommendations. The DOE Psychiatrist concluded at the
hearing that the Individual was at the point of sustained remission, but with a low to moderate
chance of relapse. For all of the reasons stated above, I conclude that the Individual has not put
forth sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline G security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
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 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 find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should
not be granted access authorization.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals