PSH-22-0078

*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-22-0078
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 9, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. On September 5, 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While
Intoxicated (DWI). Exhibit (Ex.) 7. On receiving notification of this incident, the local security
office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) asking about the circumstances
of the arrest and the Individual’s use of alcohol. In his December 2, 2021, response to the LOI, the
Individual gave the following account of the arrest: The arrest occurred when he was at his lake
house for the weekend and drank eight Bud lights and one 32-ounce Milwaukee Ice over the course
of approximately six hours. Ex. 8 at 1.2 Thereafter, he received a call from his daughter that the
golf cart had stopped operating, and he decided to walk up the street to see what happened. Id.
“While pushing / driving [the golfcart] back to the house,” the Individual was stopped by a state
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 The internal pagination of exhibits offered by the LSO and the Individual does not always correspond to the
number of pages included in the individual exhibits. This Decision cites to pages in the order in which they appear in
exhibits without regard for their internal pagination.
- 2 -
trooper. Id. The Individual underwent a field sobriety test but refused to take a breathalyzer test,
and thereafter he was arrested. Id.
Subsequent to this incident, the Individual reported in response to the LOI, he was evaluated by a
substance abuse counselor (Counselor) and entered into an intensive outpatient program (IOP) at
the Counselor’s office beginning on November 22, 2021. Id. at 3. The Individual stated that the
IOP met four nights a week, three hours a night, over the course of eight weeks. Id. at 6. According
to the Individual, prior to the DWI incident, he had a habit of consuming one beer a night with
dinner and “occasionally” more on the weekends, but always “adher[ing] to the one beer and [sic]
hour rule.” Id. at 4. Since the September 5, 2021, arrest, he reported, he had not consumed any
alcohol. Id. He acknowledged that he felt “embarrassed” about the incident. Id. “I plan to do
everything necessary to make this right,” he stated, “because my family and job are the most
important thing [sic] in my life.” Id.
A DOE-contracted psychologist (Psychologist) conducted a two-hour clinical interview of the
Individual on January 18, 2022, and prepared a Psychological Assessment (Report) documenting
his findings and conclusions.3 Ex. 9. The Report first summarized the Individual’s account of the
events that occurred on September 5, 2021, which was largely consistent with the account the
Individual had provided in response to the LOI. Id. at 3-4. Similarly, the Individual’s account of
his drinking habits was consistent with what he stated in response to the LOI, including confirming
that he had not consumed any alcohol since his arrest. Id. at 4-6. According to the Psychologist,
however, when questioned about how much and how often he drank to intoxication in the years
prior to his arrest, the Individual was “somewhat defensive” and provided “evasive answers.” Id.
at 5, 8.
The Individual produced to the Psychologist a certificate indicating he completed the eight-week
IOP on January 17, 2022, and he stated that he planned to attend two aftercare meetings per week
going forward. Id. at 6; see also Ex. A. The Individual also produced the results of three PEth tests4
he had taken in October, November, and December 2021. Ex. 9 at 8; see also Ex. D.7, D.8, D.9.
According to the laboratory results, the blood sample he gave each month was tested twice—once
for the presence of POPEth and once for the presence of PLPEth.5 Ex. D.7, D.8, D.9. All of the
3 In addition to the information obtained from the clinical interview, the Psychologist based his Report on his review
of the Individual’s Personnel Security File, a conversation with the Individual’s Counselor, and the results of
psychological testing—specifically the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Second Edition (MMPI-2),
which the Psychologist administered to the Individual at the time of his interview. Ex. 8 at 3, 7-8.
4 A Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) Test, according to the Psychologist, is a laboratory test where a negative result
indicates that the Individual’s “blood alcohol, at the time of testing, fell below 20 ng/mL, and is considered to be
evidence of minimal or no ethanol consumption in [the prior three] weeks.” Ex. 8 at 8. According to the laboratory
results produced by the Individual, PEth has “a window of detection of 2-4 weeks. However, the window of
detection is longer in individuals who chronically or excessively consume alcohol.” See, e.g., Ex. D.7.
5 According to the laboratory results, POPEth and PLPEth are considered to be the predominant PEth homologues,
accounting for 37-46% and 26-28% of the total PEth homologues respectively. See, e.g., Ex. D.7.
- 3 -
results were negative, with the exception of the October PLPEth test result, which was 24 ng/mL.6
A PEth test administered to the Individual the same day as the clinical interview yielded a negative
result. Id. The Psychologist concluded as follows:
[The Individual] is prone to drinking in binge fashion and is probably a rather habitual
drinker as well even though there is not confirmation of that suspicion. On the positive
side, he has taken considerable and appropriate action to gain information and modify his
alcohol consumption but has not maintained sobriety long enough at this time to make a
case for adequate rehabilitation and reformation.
Id. at 9. The Psychologist recommended that the Individual continue his commitment to aftercare,
which he was then attending twice per week, continue individual counseling, continue to receive
random drug tests and monthly lab work, and remain abstinent for at least one year from mid-
September 2021. Id.
On March 21, 2022, the LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it was
suspending his security clearance because it possessed reliable information that created substantial
doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. In a Summary of Security Concerns
(SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security
concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted 11 exhibits (Ex. 1–11), which included the Individual’s response to
the LOI and the Psychologist’s Report, as described above. Ex. 8, 9. The Individual submitted nine
exhibits (Ex. A–I). These included a copy of the certificate he received upon completion of the
IOP; documentation of seven negative blood alcohol tests between September 2021 and July 2022;
documentation of nine PEth tests administered between October 2021 and August 2022;7 an
Alcohol Anonymous (AA) Meeting Attendance form documenting that the Individual attended 19
sessions between April and August 2022; documentation of the Individual’s treatment
appointments, including IOP and aftercare;8 and a letter of support from a friend of 20 years
attesting to the Individual’s good character and affirming that the Individual had not consumed
any alcohol since the DWI arrest. Ex. A, C, D, E, F, H, I.
6 According to the laboratory results, a result of 20-200 ng/mL can be interpreted to indicate “moderate alcohol
consumption,” but “PEth results should be interpreted in the context of the patient’s clinical and behavioral history.”
See, e.g., Ex. D.7.
7 The PEth tests were dated October 11, 2021, November 9, 2021, December 6, 2021, February 21, 2022, March 25,
2022, April 17, 2022, May 17, 2022, June 20, 2022, and August 8, 2022. A tenth blood sample, taken January 20,
2022, was apparently not tested due to a laboratory mishap. Ex. D.1-D.9; Ex. I. The results of all nine PEth tests
were negative, with the exception of the October PLPEth test result, which was 24 ng/mL, as noted above.
8 The documentation of aftercare attendance indicates the Individual attended 18 aftercare sessions between January
24 and August 3, 2022. Ex. F. at 1. Most of the sessions he attended were in January through April 2022. He
attended only one session in May, one in June, and two in July. Id.
- 4 -
At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of his wife, his
supervisor, his long-time friend, and the Counselor. Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 10, 20, 37, 63, 113.
The LSO offered the testimony of the Psychologist.9 Id. at 152.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G as the basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible for
access authorization. Ex. 1. “Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of
questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. According to the
LSO, the factors that gave rise to the Guideline G concerns were (1) the DOE Psychologist’s
determination that the Individual binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgement,
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and (2) the Individual’s DWI on
September 5, 2021. Ex. 1. These factors justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. See
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c).
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
Dep’t 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), cert.
denied, 499 U.S. 905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual’s supervisor testified that he has supervised the Individual for six months but has
no social relationship with him outside of work. Tr. 11-12. He spoke positively about the
Individual’s work ethic and leadership skills, and he confirmed he has no reason to question the
9 On the agreement of the parties, both the Counselor and the Psychologist remained present at the hearing to
observe the testimony of all the other witnesses.
- 5 -
Individual’s reliability, honesty, and judgment. Id. at 12-14. He was aware of the DWI, but has
seen nothing to indicate that the Individual has a “drinking problem.” Id. at 16-17.
The Individual’s friend testified that he has known the Individual for 16-17 years and sees him 3-
4 days every week, including for weeknight dinners and on weekends at the lake during the
summer. Id. at 20-21. Prior to the DWI arrest, the friend testified, the Individual would drink
“maybe 10 to 15 beers” on a typical Saturday at the lake, and sometimes one or two beers with
dinner during the week. Id. at 30, 34. The friend spoke positively about the “changes” the
Individual has made since the DWI arrest. For example, he testified, the Individual used to be
“very quick to react” in situations involving conflict. Id. at 25-27. But more recently, he testified,
the Individual has made “different decisions” and exhibited a newfound restraint. Id. The friend
attributes this change to the Individual’s counseling sessions and his abstinence from alcohol. Id.
at 27. He stated that the Individual has a positive attitude towards counseling and AA, and he
confirmed that the last time he saw the Individual drink alcohol was the night of the DWI arrest.
Id. at 22-23. He testified that everyone in their friend group is supportive of the Individual’s
decision to discontinue drinking. Id. 24-25. He stated that the Individual’s wife continues to drink
wine occasionally with dinner, and his friends continue to drink as well, although many have cut
down somewhat. Id. at 30-31. As for the Individual’s future intentions, the friend testified that the
Individual has told him “he really don’t [sic] know whether he will go back and drink.” Id. at 32.
The Individual’s wife of 24 years testified that the DWI arrest made her husband feel “distraught
and defeated.” Id. at 38-40. He immediately inquired at work about what he needed to do to make
things right. Id. at 40-41. When he started the IOP around Thanksgiving, she testified, he was often
still angry, sad, and upset. But by January, she stated, he began to feel more encouraged and would
often share with his wife what he learned in his classes. Id. at 41-43. She testified that since the
IOP ended, he has been attending both aftercare and AA meetings, and that he has gotten a lot out
of taking two different classes. Id. at 43-46. She believes he will continue going to AA meetings
even if he gets his clearance back. Id. at 53. She spoke positively about the changes she has seen
in her husband since his arrest, testifying that he has “more of a calm demeanor.” Id. at 46. She
confirmed that she and their friends continue to drink alcohol around her husband, but she said “it
doesn’t phase him,” and his friends are a “hundred percent” supportive of his decision to stop
drinking. Id. at 48-49. Before the arrest, she testified, her husband would have one or two drinks a
few nights a week at dinner, and “maybe seven or eight beers” on a weekend day at the lake. Id.
at 55. Since the arrest, she stated, she has seen no evidence of him drinking any alcohol, and if he
had resumed drinking, “I’d be able to probably recognize something.” Id. at 50-51.
The Individual testified about his experience in the IOP, stating that his attitude changed from the
beginning, when he treated it as an obligation to get his job back, to the end, when he found himself
learning a lot that he could apply to his daily life. Id. at 69-70. He spoke positively about the
Wednesday night aftercare program that he currently attends, although he complained that it’s
become repetitive over time. He expressed more enthusiasm about the Monday night AA meetings,
and he mentioned specifically a gentleman in his AA group that he is close with, although the
Individual acknowledged he has not acquired a sponsor. Id. at 71-75, 80. When asked whether he
is working on a particular one of the 12 steps, he responded, “I’m looking at all the steps, and I’m
kind of working them all,” but indicated that he gravitates more toward SMART Recovery than
the steps associated with AA. Id. at 75. The Individual confirmed that he intends to continue going
- 6 -
to AA meetings on a long-term basis. Id. at 76. He also spoke about the behavioral changes he has
experienced as a result of counseling, learning to take time to listen and think before reacting in
difficult situations. Id. at 78. He testified that “it wasn’t that big of an issue” to remove alcohol
from his life, and when asked about his future intentions, he stated “I do not see [alcohol] in my
future right now.” Id. at 81-82.
On cross-examination, the Individual was asked to explain the 24 ng/mL result from the October
2021 PEth test. The Individual responded that the nurse had mistakenly used an alcohol swab when
she drew his blood, which he understood had resulted in the positive result. But, he maintained, he
had not consumed any alcohol in the five weeks prior to the test. Id. at 91-93. The Individual was
also asked to confirm the amount of alcohol he used to drink on a typical day at the lake, in light
of the conflicting testimony given by his wife and his friend on that question. Id. at 93-94. The
Individual responded that six-to-eight beers was the typical amount he consumed daily. Id. at 94.
During the week, he confirmed, he would have one or two drinks at dinner, three-to-five nights a
week. Id. at 100. Notably, the Individual was reluctant to admit that his level of drinking on the
weekends was problematic. “I mean, everybody cut loose on the weekends,” he explained. Id. at
101. In his opinion, he stated, he would not get intoxicated from the amount of beer he drank,
although he drank more than normal on the night of the DWI arrest because he was playing a
drinking game with his son and his son’s friends. Id. at 101-102. When pressed about whether his
drinking amounted to binge drinking, the Individual finally admitted, “I probably drank – well, I
know – now I know I probably should not have been drinking that much on the weekends, and that
– like I said, I’m not planning on doing that anytime soon.” Id.
The Individual expounded further on his decision not to drink after the DWI arrest, indicating that
he did it because he was told it was necessary in order to keep his job and resolve the concerns that
his drinking raised. Id. at 103. He admitted that he thought “the program” was going to be a lot
shorter at first, but “[i]t just kept [sic] longer and longer and longer.” Id. After he completed the
IOP, he seemed surprised to hear that the Psychologist recommended further measures he would
have to take. But, he testified, he was informed by his union that “[t]his is the stuff you’re going
to have to do, just get with it, deal with it and go with it.” Id. Ultimately, he stated, he has learned
a lot through the process, and acknowledges, “I was definitely consuming more than I needed to,
for sure.” Id. at 104. The Individual was also asked to explain his statement that he doesn’t intend
to drink alcohol “right now.” The Individual responded, “My intentions are not to drink, but you
can never say never on anything through life.” Id. at 98-99. Later, he clarified, “I don’t see
[drinking] as being a positive moving forward in my life. I mean, it creates more negatives than it
does create positives.” Id. at 106.
The Counselor testified that she co-facilitated the Individual’s IOP group, leading the group
approximately once each week. Id. at 120, 139. She recalled that the Individual felt frustrated and
defeated at first, but over the course of the eight weeks he started to soften and become less
defensive. Id. at 121-122. When he began aftercare, the Counselor testified, he expressed some
frustration that the Psychologist had recommended he attend two nights per week, instead of just
one. Id. at 126. He initially did attend twice a week, before cutting back to one night only. Id. at
140. His sense of defeat also returned, she testified, around the time his clearance was suspended.
Id. at 127-128. But the way he responded to this defeat, she testified, was with more maturity than
before, and he showed that he could successfully implement the tools and concepts he learned in
- 7 -
the IOP. Id. at 128-130. By the end of his first 90-day aftercare cycle, she stated, “he was a different
person in the way he spoke about himself, the way he held himself, and especially the way he
talked about recovery.” Id. at 131-132. She attributed much of this to his participation in AA,
which she opined was a particularly good fit for the Individual. Id. at 132-133.
The Counselor stated that she met with the Individual just a week before the hearing, and he
impressed her by indicating that he had used the tools he learned in recovery to mentor friends and
family members. Id. at 134-135. According to the Counselor, the act of mentoring others is “the
last step” of recovery. Id. at 135. When asked what the Individual’s probability of returning to
drinking would be “if he continues to work his program,” the Counselor responded, “I’d say it’s
very low.” Id. at 137. This opinion was not affected, she claimed, by the Individual’s testimony
that he doesn’t intend to drink again “any time soon,” because she believes that language reflects
the Individual’s understanding that “he can only focus on the present and the right now.” Id. at
142. She acknowledged, however, that she would have been more encouraged to hear him say
something like “I’ve had my last drink, I’m never going to pick up alcohol again.” Id. at 143.
Finally, the Counselor indicated that in addition to seeing him every week at aftercare, she is going
to become the Individual’s primary counselor going forward. In that capacity, she hopes to meet
with him on a weekly or biweekly basis, but she has not yet been able to fit him into her schedule.
Id. at 134, 146.
The Psychologist testified that, although he believes the Individual has “historically” been a
habitual drinker and binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, he has proven
himself to be “in a lengthy remission” over the past 10 months. Id. at 157. The one “missing
ingredient,” he stated, was the Individual’s reluctance to state definitively that he never intends to
drink again, although he noted that the Individual came closer to saying this at the hearing than he
did during the interview on January 18, 2022. Id. at 158-159. In light of the Individual’s reluctance
to state definitively that he intends to never drink again, the Psychologist opined, the Individual
was probably at “low risk” of resuming drinking, but not “very low risk” as the Counselor had
opined. Id. at 159. As for whether the Individual demonstrated rehabilitation, the Psychologist felt
“comfortable” in saying that he had, even though he had not yet been abstinent for a full 12 months.
“I guess there’s always an underlying, could be a little bit more,” he stated, “but I’m – I feel pretty
good about what he’s accomplished and where he is.” Id. at 161. Specifically, the Psychologist
confirmed that he felt satisfied the Individual had demonstrated the type and length of treatment
that was necessary to show rehabilitation. Id. at 162.
With regard to the positive PEth test result in October 2021, the Psychologist indicated that he
consulted with a psychiatrist, who believed that the 24 ng/mL result could have been a reflection
of the Individual’s drinking on the night of the arrest, approximately five weeks prior to the blood
draw. Id. at 167-168. Nonetheless, he stated, he believed the Individual’s claim that he had not
consumed any alcohol since the DWI arrest, particularly in light of the consistently negative test
results thereafter. Id. at 164.
- 8 -
V. ANALYSIS
The Individual admits to the factual allegations contained in the SSC, but he seeks to mitigate the
security concerns raised by the LSO. Ex. 2 at 2. Conditions that may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) include:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear
and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations;
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment
program; and,
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a)–(d).
The Individual has demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (c) and
(d). With regard to paragraph (c), the Individual completed an eight-week IOP in January and
continues to participate in aftercare. Although he no longer attends aftercare twice weekly,10 as
was recommended by the Psychologist, he has replaced one of the weekly sessions with weekly
AA meetings, which have benefited him greatly, as attested to by the testimony of his wife, his
Counselor, and the Individual himself. Although the Individual does not currently attend individual
counseling sessions, the Individual credibly asserted that he is seeking to begin weekly or biweekly
sessions with the Counselor, who has not yet been able to fit him into her schedule. The Individual
has no previous history of treatment and relapse, and he is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program, as confirmed by the testimony of the Counselor and the Psychologist, who
lauded the way he incorporates the tools he has learned into his daily life and mentors others
outside of the program.
With regard to paragraph (d), the individual has successfully completed the IOP and a 90-day
aftercare program, which he continues to attend, although perhaps not as regularly as once a week.
He has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence, supported not only by the
testimony of himself and his witnesses, but also by the negative results of monthly PEth tests and
periodic blood alcohol tests. Although there is some ambiguity as to a result from the first PEth
test he underwent in October 2021, which yielded a PLPEth test result of 24 ng/mL, the possibility
that the Individual may have consumed alcohol in the first few weeks of his claimed sobriety
10 There is some question as to whether the Individual still attends aftercare even on a weekly basis, as was claimed
by the Individual, his Counselor, and other witnesses. See Ex. F at 1 (documenting that the Individual had attended
just five sessions between April and early August 2022). Nonetheless, the Psychologist testified that he has
undergone the treatment necessary to demonstrate rehabilitation. Tr. at 162.
- 9 -
period does not undermine my confidence in finding that he had been abstinent for at least 10
months at the time of the hearing. Both his wife and his friend, who see the Individual on a weekly
if not daily basis, testified convincingly to the changes he has undergone since he began treatment,
and the Individual credibly claimed that he has not consumed any alcohol since the night he was
arrested.
With regard to paragraphs (a) and (b), some question remains as to whether the Individual
acknowledges his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, as well as the likelihood that his prior habit
of binge drinking may recur. Even at the time of the hearing, after seven months of treatment and
counseling, the Individual was reluctant to admit anything problematic about his prior level of
drinking, and his witnesses gave conflicting testimony about just how much he drank on a typical
weekend day – ranging all the way up to 15 beers. The Individual also struggled to state
unequivocally that he intends to remain sober, which concerned the Psychologist to a small degree.
In the face of repeated questioning about his future intentions, the Individual continued to use
phrases like “right now” and “anytime soon,” which suggests that he may be inclined to drink
again. However, the Counselor stated her belief that the Individual’s language merely reflects his
understanding that he can only focus on the present.
In any event, it is clear that the Individual has a tight-knit support group, including his friends, his
wife, his Counselor, and his AA confidant, who will support him in his continued abstinence. For
that reason, despite the Individual’s reluctance to commit to lifetime sobriety, I remain persuaded
that he has successfully mitigated the security concerns associated with his alcohol misuse.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise 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 the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals