PSH-22-0076

*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: April 21, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0076
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 28, 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
The Individual has a history of two alcohol-related arrests. On September 20, 2020, police arrested
and charged the Individual with Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 1. On
August 15, 2021, police again arrested and charged the Individual with DUI. Ex. 6 at 1.
Because of the security concerns raised by the Individual’s two DUI arrests, the local security
office (LSO) requested that he undergo an evaluation by a DOE-contractor Psychologist
(Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the Individual on November 29, 2021.
Ex. 10 at 1. In addition to interviewing the Individual, the Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s
medical records and security file, administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-
Third Edition (MMPI-3) to the Individual, and had him undergo Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) and
Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG) laboratory tests that detect alcohol consumption. Ex. 10 at 3-4. The
1 Under the regulations, “[a]ccess authorization means 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 also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2
Individual’s PEth test result was positive, indicating that the Individual had engaged in moderate
to heavy alcohol consumption during the previous three to four weeks. Ex. 10 at 4.
The Psychologist issued a report of his findings (the Report) on December 12, 2021. Ex. 10 at 5.
In the Report, the Psychologist found that the Individual had met the criteria for Alcohol Use
Disorder (AUD) set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth
Edition (DSM-5) and that the Individual was neither reformed not rehabilitated. Ex. 10 at 4-5.
The Psychologist recommended that the Individual completely abstain from alcohol use,
participate in an outpatient substance abuse treatment program on a weekly basis for 16 weeks,
attend aftercare for the remainder of one year after completing the substance abuse treatment
program, and participate in a support group such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) for one year.
Ex. 10 at 5.
After receiving the Report, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing
a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his 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 the Individual, his father, his brother, his Counselor (the Counselor), his AA
sponsor (the Sponsor), his former supervisor, and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing,
Case No. PSH-22-0076 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual submitted five exhibits marked
as Exhibits A through E. The DOE Counsel submitted 12 exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through
12.
Exhibit A consists of a series of documents indicating that the Individual attended at least 47 AA
meetings from March 5, 2022, through May 31, 2022. Exhibit B is a laboratory report indicating
that a urine sample submitted by the Individual for drug screening (not including alcohol) on
March 29, 2022, was negative. Exhibit C is a printout of text messages showing the Individual’s
interest in attending AA meetings and notes taken by the Individual during AA study sessions.
Exhibit D is a one-page note, dated June 14, 2022, from the Individual’s outpatient substance abuse
treatment program (OSAP) indicating that he has been attending that program since April 13, 2022.
Exhibit D notes that the Individual “has been engaged with treatment by attending groups weekly
and seeing his counselor and case manager.”
Exhibit E consists of the Individual’s treatment records from the OSAP. These records indicate
that the Individual began treatment on April 26, 2022. Ex. E at 11. The OSAP records indicates
that the Individual believed that his social anxiety was a trigger for his alcohol abuse. Ex. E at 5.
Exhibit E indicates that the treatment program recommended for the Individual included three
hours a week of group therapy. Ex. E at 5. An entry in these records, dated April 26, 2022, states:
He last drank alcohol three weeks ago, one drink then. Before then, the last he drank
was January 2022. Before that time, he was drinking up to once per week, usually
3 drinks each time.
3
Ex. E at 16, 25. The OSAP records indicate that the Counselor diagnosed him with Alcohol Use
Disorder, Mild, and Adjustment Disorders, With Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood. Ex. E at
24. The Counselor further concluded that: “He is well motivated to maintain sobriety, and has
good supports in place to succeed.” Ex. E at 25. The Counselor further opined in his treatment
notes that the Individual “is thoughtful and intelligent with motivation to get his legal issues
settled. [He] should be able to complete treatment with relative ease as long as he is able to make
it to groups and sessions.” Ex. E at 27. The Individual’s treatment records also indicated that the
Individual was making ongoing progress in his treatment. Ex. E at 33.
II. The Notification Letter and the Associated Security Concerns
The Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE
created substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline G
(Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines, citing his history of two alcohol-related
arrests and the Psychologist’s finding that the Individual met the DSM-5 criteria for AUD. This
information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. Under Guideline G,
“[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. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence . . . regardless of the
frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol
use disorder,” and “diagnosis by a duly qualified . . . clinical psychologist . . . of alcohol use
disorder.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a) and (d).
The LSO also invoked Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) in the Notification Letter, citing the
Individual’s two alcohol-related arrests in support thereof. This information adequately justifies
the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J. Guideline J provides that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt
about a person’s judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into
question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.”
Adjudicative Guideline J at ¶ 30.
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
4
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. 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.
IV. Hearing
At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of six witnesses, including himself, in an
attempt to show that he was reformed and rehabilitated so as to mitigate the security concerns
raised by his two alcohol-related arrests and his AUD.
The Individual testified that he “had a tendency to binge drink.” Tr. at 17. The Individual testified
that he cannot consume alcohol safely, stating, “I don’t know when to stop.” Tr. at 78. He testified
that, after the second DUI, he came to understand that he would become “very impulsive” when
using alcohol, which led to his binge drinking. Tr. at 17. At that point, he testified, “I knew I had
a problem.” Tr. at 17. The Individual testified that his sobriety date is January 16, 2022. Tr. at
18. The Individual testified that he had been attending AA meetings since March, has an AA
sponsor, and had been receiving outpatient counseling.2 Tr. at 18, 34. He attends weekly AA
meetings outpatient treatment, individual counseling, and meets with his sponsor.3 The Individual
is currently working on Step Four of AA’s Twelve-Step Program. Tr. at 35-36, 52. He repeatedly
testified that he intends to continue with AA for the rest of his life. Tr. at 52, 71, 74. The OSAP
included 3 hours a week of group therapy and course work. Tr. at 54. He recently concluded the
OSAP. Tr. at 54. The Individual testified that he does not want to use alcohol, has not been using
alcohol, and intends to permanently abstain from using alcohol. Tr. at 42, 79.
The Individual testified that “getting sober has really put me back on track about knowing what I
want to do with my future and giving me some newfound insight about, you know, just life and
what I want to do.” Tr. at 20. He is very close to his family, and they are all aware that he is in
AA. Tr. at 23-27. The Individual testified that he would use alcohol to cope with his social anxiety.
Tr. at 29. He now realized that the partying lifestyle was superficial and is now trying to
concentrate on more meaningful interpersonal relationships. Tr. at 29-30. He was concerned that
his sobriety would adversely affect his social life, but it has not, and in fact it has improved. Tr. at
42. The Individual testified that he has learned coping tools through his treatment and AA, for
example: calling his sponsor, staying present in the moment, and changing his perspective. Tr. at
39. He does not keep alcohol in his home. Tr. at 40.
On cross examination, the DOE Counsel asked the Individual about a notation in his treatment
records indicating that, on April 26, 2022, he had reported that his last use of alcohol occurred
three weeks earlier. Tr. at 44. The Individual responded by stating:
The honest answer is I was trying to find an outpatient place for a long time.
Nobody would admit me at that point in time because I said my January – my actual
2 The Individual testified that several of his family members are involved in the AA program. Tr. at 23.
3 The Individual testified that he recently concluded his individual counseling. Tr. at 80.
5
date of my last drink was January 16th. I told a couple places that that was the last
date. Nobody would admit me. My insurance wouldn't take it. Nothing like that. So
I knew -- but I knew I still needed to find help. And so the place that I went to, [the
OSAP], essentially was like “Okay, look, we'll just say --we'll put this down.” So
that -- that's what the case was there.
Tr. at 47-48. The Individual then testified that he last used alcohol on January 16, 2022. Tr. at 48.
The Individual also claimed that he was not dishonest about his last use of alcohol with the OSAP
staff. Tr. at 48. He then specifically testified that he did not tell the OSAP staff that he had used
alcohol three weeks earlier and reiterated that his last use of alcohol occurred on January 16, 2022.
Tr. at 48-50.
During the Individual’s testimony, the following exchange occurred between the Individual and
his counsel:
Q. Well, a lot of those -- a lot of people that you meet, you know, their drinking
was triggered by -- by trauma sometimes --
A. Um-hum.
Q. -- very significant trauma, correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you've been fortunate, haven't you?
A. Yeah. I have.
Q. You've had a relatively trauma-free existence so far in your life, correct?
A. Um-hum.
Q. Have you had an opportunity either with your sponsor or through the group,
you know, to explore how to -- how to deal with triggering events?
A. Yes. So I haven't -- I haven't had much trauma in my life, I would say, but
I definitely have had some insecurities that I felt like led me to drinking.
Tr. at 38-39. Subsequently, after asking several other questions, the Individual’s counsel asked
the Individual: “Have you recognized any change in your relationship with your father since you've
stopped drinking?” The Individual responded by stating, in pertinent part: “I didn't have traumas,
but I definitely had some issues growing up with different family members and things like that.”
Tr. at 41. On cross examination, the DOE Counsel cited the Individual’s treatment records
indicating that the Individual had informed the OSAP staff that he had suffered “Verbal, Emotional
Abuse, Sexual Abuse, Molestation and Physical Abuse and Neglect,” and then asked why the
Individual had testified earlier that he had not had any significant trauma in his life. Tr. at 50-51.
In response, the Individual testified that the OSAP’s records were accurate and that he had supplied
that information to the OSAP and tried to explain the contradiction between this information and
his earlier testimony by testifying: “So the reason I said no to that statement was because it was
correlated to alcohol, and I was correlating my problems directly with the alcohol, and that’s the
reason why I said what I said.” Tr. at 51-52.
The Individual’s former supervisor testified at the hearing that the Individual was an excellent
employee. Tr. at 88.
6
The Sponsor testified at the hearing. He has been an AA sponsor for “about 30 years.” Tr. at 93.
He testified that he has been the Individual’s sponsor for “a few months.” Tr. at 91. The Sponsor
testified that the Individual is attending AA meetings, reading the AA Big Book, and working on
AA’s Twelve-Step program. Tr. at 101. He sees the Individual at AA meetings two or three time
a week. Tr. at 103. The Individual is starting the Fourth Step of AA’s Twelve-Step program. Tr.
at 95, 108. He testified that the Individual has completed his assignments and that the Individual
is engaged in group meetings, where he is honest and open. Tr. at 94-96. He opined that he
believes that the Individual “is truly wanting to change,” noting that the Individual was very honest
in taking his personal inventory. Tr. at 97. He further opined that the Individual is not just
abstaining from alcohol use, he is trying to understand why he was drinking in the first place. Tr.
at 99.
The Individual’s brother testified at the hearing that he and the Individual are “best friends.” Tr.
at 113. He testified that the Individual “definitely” had a problem with alcohol. Tr. at 115. He
further testified that the Individual has decided to stop using alcohol and to become involved in
AA, Tr. at 116-117, that he attends two to three AA meetings a week, Tr. at 117, and that he does
not keep alcohol in his home. Tr. at 113.
The Counselor testified at the hearing. He is a state-credentialed substance abuse counselor
employed by the OSAP and has been treating clients since October 2021. Tr. at 125. The
Counselor testified that the Individual complied with all of the OSAP’s requirements. Tr. at 128.
The root of the Individual’s substance abuse was his social anxiety and his desire to be more
outgoing. Tr. at 129. The Individual’s family and friends provide him with a support system as
does AA. Tr. at 131. The Counselor acknowledged that the Individual has had some childhood
trauma, but opined, “I don’t know that they’re things that are haunting him or causing any kind of
distress currently.” Tr. at 131. The Counselor believes that the Individual is committed to his
recovery. Tr. at 132. His understanding is that the Individual last used alcohol in January 2022.4
Tr. at 138. He testified that the Individual’s AUD was of mild severity. Tr. at 139, 143. OSAP
plans to discharge the Individual from the program because he “has adhered to and completed all
the treatment that we’ve advised and [has] met the expectations of treatment.” Tr. at 141. When
the Counselor was asked about the Individual’s future plans or intentions, he testified, “He
discussed with me the idea that he doesn't want to drink in the future until he feels like his feet are
more firmly on the ground with being in social situations.” Tr. at 141. The Counselor further
opined that the Individual might be able to use alcohol in moderation in the future. Tr. at 142.
The Counselor did not have any opinion about the Individual’s risk of relapse, but testified that
“he has a positive outlook for his sobriety in the future as long as he remains faithful to his relapse
prevention plan, that he relies on the coping skills that he learned and is mindful of the barriers
that are going to pop up, that he has the tools that he needs.” Tr. at 142, 144. When he weas asked
if the Individual is in remission under the DSM-5, the Counselor testified, “Yes, technically, for
sure.” Tr. at 144.
The Individual’s father testified at the hearing. He testified that the Individual does not keep
alcohol in his home. Tr. at 149. After the Individual’s second DUI, the Individual understood that
he could not control his alcohol use and that he needed to abstain from further alcohol use. Tr. at
4 The Counselor did not prepare the initial assessment that indicated that the Individual’s last use of alcohol occurred
in early April. The initial assessment was prepared by the psychologist who conducts initial assessments on behalf
the OSAP.
7
150. The Individual sought professional help and has been very committed to his recovery. Tr. at
150-151. The Individual has been working hard to control his environment. Tr. at 152. The
Individual plans to continue abstaining from alcohol use. Tr. at 152. The Individual has become
involved in AA. Tr. at 152. They have a very tight-knit family, and the family supports the
Individual in his recovery. Tr. at 151, 153. The father counts himself as part of the Individual’s
support network. Tr. at 153. The Individual now confides in his father. Tr. at 153. The father
believes that the Individual’s last use of alcohol occurred on January 16, 2022. Tr. at 154.
The Psychologist observed the testimony of the Individual’s witnesses before testifying at the
hearing. The Psychologist testified that he believed that the Individual has shown adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from his AUD. Tr. at 158-159. The Psychologist
testified, “I base that upon the chart notes from the rehabilitation program and from the testimony
given by witnesses who have provided information today, including [the Individual] himself.” Tr.
at 159. The Psychologist noted that the Individual is engaged in AA and is finding it helpful. Tr.
at 160. The Psychologist found the Individual’s claim that his sobriety date is January 16, 2022,
to be credible. Tr. at 160. The Psychologist testified that six months of sobriety “is a notable
amount of sobriety.” Tr. at 160-161. He further opined that the Individual “is on a good path and
seems to be motivated . . . .” Tr. at 161. The Psychologist noted that the Individual could have
had a relapse in early April 2022, “but he does seem to have a good foundation of knowledge, to
me, and a good start on a program that I’m sufficiently convinced that he is a good bet in terms of
having been remediated at this time.” Tr. at 161. The Psychologist further testified, “Even if he
did have that drink in April, I would see that as something that he had recovered from now in July
and had not drank since then, or at least we have no evidence that that’s the case. So I would not
give that a particular heavy weight.” Tr. at 161-162. He described the Individual’s prognosis as
“fairly good.” Tr. at 162, 164-165. The Psychologist also testified that the Individual “has made
some very good progress and has gained insight through treatment.” Tr. at 164. He also agreed
that the Individual has “a very good support system.” Tr. at 164.
V. Analysis
The Individual’s testimony demonstrated a high level of insight, introspection, and intelligence.
He clearly understands the significance of his AUD diagnosis and has made a strong commitment
to his sobriety. However, as discussed below, contradictions between the OSAP records and the
Individual’s hearing testimony raise concerns regarding the Individual’s credibility.
The Individual’s OSAP records indicate that he consumed alcohol in early April 2022, while the
Individual testified that his last alcohol use occurred on January 16, 2022. If the Individual’s last
use of alcohol occurred in early April, he would have only been abstaining from alcohol use for
three months at the time of the hearing, which would be insufficient to establish a pattern of
abstinence. More importantly, it would mean that the Individual provided false testimony under
oath, and that he provided false information to his father, his counselor, and his Sponsor as well.
When confronted with the information from the OSAP records indicating that the Individual used
alcohol in early April 2022, the Individual testified that that information was false, and was only
placed in the OSAP record in order to ensure that his treatment would be covered by his insurance.5
5 This explanation does not reflect positively upon the Individual’s judgement, credibility, and trustworthiness, in
colluding to provide false information to his insurance company in order to obtain treatment.
8
However, the Individual submitted no evidence corroborating this assertion. Moreover, while the
Individual repeatedly testified that he intends to permanently abstain from alcohol use, his
Counselor reported only that the Individual intended to abstain from alcohol use only “until he
feels like his feet are more firmly on the ground with being in social situations.” Tr. at 141.
Finally, during his hearing testimony, the Individual testified that he had not had much trauma in
his life, while his records from the OSAP quite clearly indicated the contrary.
While it is possible that these contradictions have explanations, such explanations were either not
provided during this proceeding, or if they were, were not sufficiently corroborated to resolve the
concerns that they raise. Because the Individual has not submitted sufficient laboratory records to
show that he has abstained from alcohol use since January of 2022, I would have to rely upon his
testimony to conclude that he has done so. The contradictions discussed above prevent me from
being sufficiently confident that the Individual’s testimony, alone, can be relied upon to resolve
the security concerns raised from his two DUI arrests and his AUD, Mild, diagnosis.
Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G if they can show “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 23(a). In the present case, the Individual’s alcohol consumption may have occurred as recently
as April 2022. Moreover, since the Individual’s maladaptive alcohol consumption was a symptom
of his AUD, it will continue to cast doubt upon his reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment until
he has shown that he has been sufficiently reformed or rehabilitated from his AUD.
The Adjudicative Guidelines further provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline G if “[t]he individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b). In the present case, the Individual has
acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use and has taken the appropriate steps to
overcome his AUD. However, for the reasons discussed above, he has not demonstrated a clear
and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
The Adjudicative Guidelines also provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G if “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(c). In the present case, the Individual has been
participating in counseling and a treatment program and his Counselor testified that he has made
satisfactory progress. However, the doubts raised about the Individual’s credibility prevent me
from concluding that his progress has been satisfactory, since he may be concealing alcohol use.
In addition, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline G if “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
9
Guidelines at ¶ 23(d). In the present case, the Individual has completed a treatment program,
however, the individual has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a clear and established
pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
I therefore find that the security concerns raised by his AUD diagnosis and his two DUI arrests
under Guideline G have not been resolved.
Guideline J
The Individual’s criminal activity concerns are inextricably linked to his AUD. Both of his arrests
occurred after incidents in which the Individual was intoxicated and were clearly symptomatic of
his AUD. Since the Individual has not convincingly shown that he is rehabilitated or reformed
from his AUD, I find that the Individual has not yet shown that the root cause of his criminal
activity has been successfully addressed.
An individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline J if “so much time has elapsed since
the criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is
unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(a). In the present case, the Individual’s AUD does not
constitute an “unusual circumstance.” Moreover, until the Individual’s AUD is fully addressed, I
am not convinced it is unlikely to recur.
An individual may also mitigate security concerns under Guideline J if “the individual was
pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures are no longer present in the
person's life.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(b). In the present case, there is no evidence that the
Individual was pressured or coerced into committing the two DUIs.
An individual may also mitigate security concerns under Guideline J if there is “no reliable
evidence to support that the individual committed the offense.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(b).
In the present case, the Individual does not deny that he was found in an intoxicated state in his
automobile on two occasions.
An individual may also mitigate security concerns under Guideline J if “[t]here is evidence of
successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence of
criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or
higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(d). In the present case, rehabilitation would need to be in the form
of rehabilitation from his AUD. The Individual has not shown that he is rehabilitated from his
AUD.
I therefore find that the security concerns raised by his two arrests under Guideline J have not been
resolved.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and J.
After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner, I
10
find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines G and J.
Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his 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