PSH-22-0089

*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: May 19, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0089
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: August 30, 2022
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXX XXXXX (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 not be granted.
I. Background
A DOE Contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. As part of the clearance process, the Individual was required to complete a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), which he signed and submitted on January
22, 2021. Ex. 9. When asked, among other things, whether alcohol consumption had ever
negatively impacted his work performance within the previous seven years, the Individual
indicated that it had. Ex. 9 at 13. He stated that in 2019, he had consumed “a couple beers before”
his work shift. Ex. 9 at 13. The Individual stated that his supervisor smelled alcohol about the
Individual’s person and asked that the Individual submit to a drug test. Ex. 9 at 13. The Individual
refused to take the drug test, and as a result, he was terminated from his employment. Ex. 9 at 4,
13. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) subsequently conducted an enhanced subject
interview (ESI) of the Individual on February 16, 2021. Ex. 10 at 60. During the interview, the
Individual expounded on his October 2019 termination, stating that his supervisor also felt he was
“acting funny.” Ex. 10 at 13. The Individual stated that he had consumed alcohol prior to his shift
as a result of the distress he was experiencing over the state of his marriage. Ex. 10 at 61.
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 Local Security Office requested that the Individual complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI),
which the Individual signed and submitted on November 5, 2021. Ex. 6. As a result of the
information provided, the LSO instructed the Individual to undergo a psychological evaluation
conducted by a DOE-consultant Psychologist (DOE Psychologist).2 Ex. 7. In forming her opinions,
the DOE Psychologist relied on the information she obtained in the clinical interview with the
Individual, as well as her review of the Individual’s Personnel Security File (PSF), and the
Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-V). Ex. 7. On January 28,
2022, the DOE Psychologist issued a Psychological Assessment (report) containing her opinions
and diagnoses. Ex. 7.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance and that his clearance had been suspended. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC)
attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns
under Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline I
(Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter
informed the Individual 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 Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his girlfriend. See Transcript of Hearing,
Case No. PSH-22-0089 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). He also submitted nine exhibits, marked as
Exhibits A through I. The DOE Counsel submitted ten exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 10
and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter and Associated Concerns
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance.
That information pertains to Guidelines E, G, and I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgement, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying security concern is a “[r]efusal to provide full, frank, and truthful answers to
2 A Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) blood test was administered in conjunction with the psychological evaluation. Ex. 7
at 6. The PEth test detects “any significant alcohol use over the past three or four weeks.” Ex. 7 at 6. The test results
registered at 737 ng/mL, which was “congruent with heavy alcohol use.” Ex. 7 at 6. The Individual voluntarily
submitted to two PEth tests, one in late June 2022 and one in late July 2022. Ex. B; Ex. E; Ex. I.; Tr. at 35-36 Although
the June 2022 PEth test result was positive, the July 2022 PEth test was negative. Ex. B; Ex E; Ex. I.
3
lawful questions of investigators, security officials, or other official representatives in connection
with a personnel security or trustworthiness determination.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15(b).
With respect to Guideline E, the LSO alleged that during the psychological evaluation on January
13, 2022, the Individual indicated that he had last consumed alcohol in September 2021. However,
the PEth test results were “positive at a level of 737 ng/mL[,]” indicating “heavy alcohol use and
confirmed evidence of regular, heavy drinking in the last three weeks before the test.” Ex. 1 at 1.
The LSO also alleged that in the November 5, 2021, LOI, the Individual indicated that he last
drank alcohol in January 2021, but he admitted during the psychological evaluation that he
consumed alcohol in April or May 2021 and September 2021. Ex. 1 at 1.
Under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the
exercise of questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those
conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern
are “[a]lcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or
impaired condition…regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use
disorder[,]” and “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional…of alcohol
use disorder[.]” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(b) and (d). With respect to Guideline G, the LSO
alleged that: 1) the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, and without
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; 2) the Individual submitted to a PEth test in conjunction
with the psychological evaluation, the results of which indicated “heavy alcohol use and confirmed
evidence of regular, heavy drinking in the last three weeks[;]” and 3) the Individual was terminated
from prior employment in October 2019 because he did not submit to a drug test, and “admitted
that he had consumed two beers before his shift[.]” Ex. 1 at 1-2.
Under Guideline I (Psychological Conditions), “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality
conditions impair judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27.
Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying
security concern is “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual
has a condition that may impair judgement, stability, reliability or trustworthiness[.]” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 28(a). With respect to Guideline I, the LSO alleged that the DOE Psychologist
determined that the Individual “has difficulty with tolerating shame about his lack of control over
drinking which leads him to minimize and be less than forthcoming about his behavior.” Ex. 1 at
2. Further, the DOE Psychologist determined this behavior “calls into question his judgement,
reliability, and trustworthiness.” Ex. 1 at 2.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
4
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as 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. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
In his November 2021 LOI and subsequent testimony, the Individual indicated that he was using
alcohol as a way to “cope” with his “failing marriage.” Ex. 6 at 4; Tr. at 69-70. The Individual’s
alcohol consumption began increasing in 2017, and “[b]y April 2019, he was having 20 to 25
drinks a week.”3 Ex. 7 at 5. Although the Individual made attempts to reduce his alcohol
consumption, he concluded that he could not do so on his own. Ex. 7 at 5. At the urging of his
parents, the Individual sought and participated in treatment from April 2019 to May 2019 but
relapsed in October 2019 after experiencing termination from his employment and continued
difficulties with his marriage. Ex. 6 at 4; Ex. 7 at 4; Tr. at 39, 71, 74-75. The Individual told the
OPM investigator that when he began drinking again, he was consuming “six to seven beers a
day[,] five days a week until [October,]” at which point, he discontinued consuming alcohol. Ex.
10 at 63. The Individual testified that before his relapse in October 2019, he spent the month of
June in a sober living environment. Tr. at 39, 70, 75. The Individual underwent treatment once
more from October 2019 to November 2019, and by the time he was drinking again in February
2020,4 he was doing so to cope with the fact that his marriage had ended. Ex. 6 at 4, 8; Tr. at 75-
76. From approximately February 2020 to April 2020, the Individual attended ten-minute
appointments with his doctor “to check up and receive medicine[]” to assist with his alcohol
withdrawal. Ex. 6 at 4; Tr. at 70. He again participated in outpatient treatment from approximately
May 2020 to August 2020. Ex. 6 at 4. The Individual resumed drinking in December 2020, and by
February 2021, he was drinking “two beers once a week[.]” Ex. 10 at 63; Tr. at 80.
The Individual stated in his November 2021 LOI that he last consumed alcohol in January 2021,
when he drank three beers over a five-hour period, but during his January 2022 psychological
evaluation, he stated that he had also consumed alcohol “in April or May 2021.” Ex. 6 at 6; Ex. 7
at 4. The Individual also informed the DOE Psychologist that he consumed approximately two
glasses of wine in September 2021, but that “he planned to remain abstinent from alcohol because
it had caused a lot of problems in his personal life and at work.” Ex. 7 at 4. The DOE Psychologist
noted in the report that the PEth test results “were inconsistent with [the Individual’s] report in the
3 The Individual stated during the ESI that around April 2019, he was consuming approximately ten beers a day and
liquor occasionally. Ex. 10 at 63.
4 The Individual told the OPM Investigator that he began consuming alcohol again in January 2020 at a rate of “six to
seven beers a day[,] five days a week” but stopped drinking again that same month. Ex. 10 at 63.
5
[clinical interview] that he had stopped drinking regularly and that his last time drinking alcohol
was approximately four months before the evaluation.” Ex. 7 at 7.
The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, and
opined that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex.
7 at 5; Tr. at 84-85. For the Individual to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation,
the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual seek and participate in “chemical
dependence treatment” and remain abstinent for “at least three and preferably six months.” Ex. 7
at 8; Tr. at 85. Further, the Psychologist stated that the Individual should provide objective
evidence of his ongoing abstinence by taking PEth tests on a monthly basis or submit to “random
urine alcohol tests…at his own expense[.]” Ex. 7 at 8; Tr. at 85.
The DOE Psychologist also stated that “[t]here appears to be a strong pattern of denial about his
ongoing struggles with drinking.” Ex. 7 at 8. Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist opined that the
Individual’s “difficulty tolerating shame about his lack of control over drinking leads him to
minimize and be less than forthcoming about his behavior.” Ex. 7 at 9. The Individual’s failure to
be completely forthcoming “calls into question his judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness.”
Ex. 7 at 9. The DOE Psychologist stated that “[t]his could be remedied to some degree by a return
to chemical dependency treatment[,]” and she indicated that the Individual “would benefit from
individual psychotherapy” geared toward such things as learning coping mechanisms and taking
responsibility for his behavior. Ex. 7 at 9. She stated that the Individual should attend 50-minute
psychotherapy sessions on a weekly basis for six months, or until such time as the Individual and
his provider feel that “treatment goals have been met.” Ex. 7 at 9.
During his testimony, the Individual stated that he last consumed alcohol on May 23, 2022, and
that he began abstaining from alcohol because it was not only hindering his ability to obtain a
security clearance, but because he realized his girlfriend “would feel more comfortable” with their
relationship if he stopped drinking alcohol. Tr. at 32-33, 36. Further, the Individual decided it
would be healthier to abstain from alcohol. Tr. at 33. In the month of May, prior to abstaining, the
Individual indicated that he consumed approximately “two to three drinks maybe every other day.”
Tr. at 33. The Individual’s girlfriend testified that she last witnessed the Individual consume
alcohol in May 2022, and that between October 2021 and May 2022, she saw the Individual
consume alcohol approximately twice a week, and had seen him become intoxicated “[a] handful”
of times, but denied ever seeing him lose consciousness due to alcohol consumption. Tr. at 16-18.
Regarding the Individual’s past alcohol consumption, the Individual’s girlfriend testified that she
did express some concern over the amount he drank, as it seemed to be “more than usual for a
person.” Tr. at 21-22. The Individual testified that since abstaining from alcohol, he has noticed
an improvement in his relationship with his children, and his girlfriend testified that the Individual
has been “more present, more alert[,]” which has improved their communication. Tr. at 20-21, 42,
46. Further, since abstaining, the Individual has identified his triggers, which include stressors and
a lack of structure. Tr. at 42-43. The Individual testified that he feels he is not in danger of relapse
because, before beginning his abstinence, he was consuming less alcohol than he was in 2019, he
no longer faces the same stressors he did in the past, and he has “figured out better ways to deal
with the stresses that do come along.”5 Tr. at 41, 51-52. When stressors do occur, he knows he can
5 By way of example, the Individual testified that a friend had passed away weeks prior to the hearing, and he was
able cope with this particular stressor without consuming alcohol or experiencing any cravings for alcohol. Tr. at 40.
6
reach out to his parents, his girlfriend, his sponsor and other AA attendees for support, and he
practices meditation. Tr. at 43-44, 46-47, 49, 70-71. The Individual also testified that he no longer
keeps alcohol in his home. Tr. at 45.
The Individual also began attending in-person AA meetings on a weekly basis on June 27, 2022,
for a total of seven meetings.6 Ex. A; Tr. at 36, 69. A letter from his sponsor, whom the Individual
first engaged in June 2022, indicates that the Individual approached him to discuss the difficulties
he was experiencing and how those difficulties seemed to relate to his alcohol consumption. Ex.
G; Tr. at 69. His sponsor began working with the Individual on the program’s “Twelve Steps” for
several hours each week, and he described the Individual’s participation as “genuine[] and without
fear of self-discovery.” Ex. G; Tr. at 48. The Individual also testified that he is on step three of the
“Twelve Steps,” and that he truthfully reported to his AA whether he was consuming alcohol. Tr.
at 39, 52. The Individual testified that his goal in AA is to “build a solid foundation in sobriety[,]”
and further, he intends to attend AA “indefinitely.” Tr. at 44-55.
The Individual also testified, and his girlfriend confirmed, that he began attending virtual therapy
sessions with a licensed therapist a couple of weeks prior to the hearing. Ex. H; Tr. at 27, 48, 50.
As of the date of the hearing, the Individual had attended two sessions with his therapist and stated
that they were in the process of “getting to know each other[.]” Tr. 49. The sessions are intended
to address such concerns as his ability to manage stress, regulate his emotions, modify his behavior,
and receive support to maintain his sobriety. Ex. H. He also testified that it took him some time to
find a counselor who offered sessions he could attend. Tr. at 50-51.
Regarding the inconsistent reports pertaining to his date of last consumption provided in the LOI
as compared to the date provided during the psychological evaluation, the Individual admitted at
the hearing that he “was trying to downplay the amount of alcohol that [he] was having.” Tr. at
54-55, 57. He testified that because he felt that admitting he had consumed alcohol would have
been “frowned upon,” he decided to “tell a partial truth.” Tr. at 55. He confirmed in his testimony
that he was attempting “to actively hide[]” the fact that he was still drinking alcohol from
individuals involved in the investigation process. Tr. at 55. However, he testified that the
statements he provided at the hearing could be trusted not only because of the evidence he
provided,7 but because he “[does not] want alcohol to be affecting [his] life…anymore.” Tr. at 56-
He also testified, and his girlfriend confirmed, that they went on a camping trip with other campers who brought and
consumed alcohol. Tr. at 27-28, 41. Although he did state that he thought he would like to have “a couple beers and
relax” at that time, he explained that “it [did not] seem important to [him]…to drink.” Tr. at 41-42. The Individual’s
girlfriend testified, and the Individual confirmed, that the Individual is honest with others about his abstinence. Tr. at
29, 45-46.
6 The Individual had been attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings in 2019, but due to the pandemic, in-
person meetings were discontinued in 2020. Ex. 7 at 5. At that time, the Individual began attending meetings consisting
of a small group of fellow AA attendees, and occasionally attended virtual meetings. Ex. 7 at 5; Tr. at 36-37. In his
testimony, the Individual estimated that prior to 2022, he was attending AA meetings at a rate of once a month. Tr. at
37, 67-68. He did not begin the “Twelve Steps” at that time. Ex. 7 at 6; Tr. at 52.
7 The Individual’s supervisor submitted a letter in support of the Individual, indicating that he believes the Individual
is “reliable and trustworthy.” Ex. C. He also stated that the Individual presents “to work alert, presentable, and fit to
perform his duties[,]” and that he has never seen the Individual report “under the influence” of any substance. Ex. C.
7
57. He did not feel that his judgement was affected by his alcohol consumption at the time he made
the statements in question, as he was not consuming alcohol in large amounts in May 2022, and
further, he feels that AA and his current sobriety have made him more forthcoming in such
situations. Tr. at 58-59.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation, as the Individual had not achieved at least three months of sobriety
and his June PEth test was positive, which she felt was inconsistent with his assertion that he had
been abstinent since May 2022. Tr. at 88-89. She also testified that regardless of how much time
the Individual had been abstinent, his AA attendance and recent counseling was not enough to
evidence adequate rehabilitation or reformation. Tr. at 91. The DOE Psychologist also testified
that based on the testimony provided, she believed that the Individual’s “pattern of minimizing
how much [he is] drinking” was “ongoing.” Tr. at 89. Further, she still held the opinion that the
Individual continued to exhibit an emotional, mental, or personality condition (namely, his
difficulty tolerating shame regarding his alcohol consumption) which could impair his reliability
or judgement. Tr. at 91-92. She described this issue as “longstanding.” Tr. at 92. The DOE
Psychologist concluded that the Individual’s prognosis was poor, as she did not “have any
indications that he [was] on a stable path toward being abstinent[.]” Tr. at 94.
V. Analysis
Guideline E
As noted, Guideline E concerns “[c]onduct involving questionable judgement, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. An Individual may mitigate Guideline E concerns if:
a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or
falsification before being confronted with the facts;
b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or significantly
contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with professional responsibilities
for advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes.
Upon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the
individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
A letter submitted by the Individual’s coworker also echoed this observation, indicating that he has never seen the
Individual report to work “under the influence or unable to perform a job.” Ex. D. The Individual’s coworker also
described the Individual as “an honest person[.]” Ex. D. The Individual’s girlfriend testified that she would be able to
tell if the Individual began consuming alcohol, as she would be able to “smell it[]” and “see it[,]” and further, she
believes the Individual would tell her if he began drinking again. Tr. at 24. The Individual’s girlfriend also stated that
she has never had “questions or issues with [the Individual’s] reliability[]” or trustworthiness, and indicated that the
individual has not expressed any cravings for alcohol. Tr. at 26, 28-29.
8
c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so infrequent, or
it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change the
behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances, or factors
that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate behavior, and such
behavior is unlikely to recur;
e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability; and
g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased, or
occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's reliability,
trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and regulations
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(a)-(g).
At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged the fact that he had misrepresented the amount of
alcohol he was consuming to the DOE Psychologist during the psychological evaluation, and
further, that he misrepresented the date he last consumed an alcoholic beverage in the LOI. He
acknowledged that this behavior was the result of a sense of shame over his alcohol consumption.
He also testified that he felt so capable of his ability to keep sensitive national security material
safe and secure, “that maybe [that was] part of what led [him] to feel like…downplaying the truth
was in some way acceptable.” Tr. at 59. However, despite such admissions at the hearing, what
the record lacks is any indication that the Individual attempted to correct the misrepresentations
prior to being confronted with them. Further, the Individual’s misrepresentations were in the
context of the current investigation and pertained to the very matter that posed some concern to
the LSO, the Individual’s alcohol consumption. Accordingly, I am unable to conclude that the
behavior was remote enough in the past, minor enough, infrequent, or occurred under unique
circumstances to suggest that such behavior is unlikely to recur, and therefore, does not cast doubt
on the Individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgement.
As indicated above, the Individual engaged a therapist prior to the hearing for the purpose of,
among other things, obtaining assistance with behavior modification and stress management. Ex.
G. As an initial matter, there is no specific indication of which behavior, outside of alcohol
consumption, the Individual and his therapist intend to address. Ex. G. Further, as the Individual
indicated during the hearing, he has only attended two sessions with his therapist, and those
sessions were introductory in nature. Tr. at 49. While I have the Individual’s assertions that he will
not repeat his behavior, there is nothing in the record that indicates the stressors or circumstances
that caused the misrepresentations have been eliminated by the therapy sessions he attended.
Additionally, there is no evidence before me that the therapy sessions have reduced or eliminated
vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. The Individual also testified that he feels
that AA participation has made him more forthcoming about such matters, and further, the record
9
shows that the Individual had been attending AA meetings once a month prior to undergoing the
clearance process. Tr. at 37, 58-59, 67-68. However, if the aforementioned assertion the Individual
made regarding his AA participation were true, then the record would reflect more forthcoming
behavior from the Individual at the start of the clearance process, which it does not. Accordingly,
I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated any of the Guideline G concerns pursuant to the
mitigating factors at ¶ 17(a), (c), (d), and (e).
I need not address the mitigating factors at ¶17(b), (f), and (g), as there is no indication that the
Individual acted pursuant to instructions from legal counsel or similar individual, that the
information came from a source of questionable reliability, that the Individual’s behavior was the
result of associating with certain persons, or that the statements occurred under circumstances that
do not cast doubt upon the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgement, or willingness to
comply with rules and regulations.
Guideline G
As noted, Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) provides that “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption
often leads to the exercise of questionable judgement or the failure to control impulses, and can
raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 21. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline G include:
a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual's
current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations;
c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment
program; and
d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required
aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption
or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a)-(d).
As an initial matter, once the Individual received the DOE Psychologist’s report in April 2022, he
did take action to try to mitigate the Guideline G concerns. Tr. at 61-63, 66. He began attending
AA meetings with greater regularity and secured a sponsor, he secured a therapist, he began
abstaining from alcohol, he began managing his triggers, and he started to build himself a solid
support system. However, I cannot conclude that the Individual mitigated the relevant concerns.
10
At the hearing, the Individual asserted that he had resolved the relevant concerns pursuant to the
mitigating factor at ¶ 23(a). Tr. at 56-57. I cannot agree. While the Individual testified that his
maladaptive alcohol consumption was in response to stressful, life-altering events and that he
learned how to cope with such stressors, it also remains true that the Individual continued to
consume alcohol well into May 2022, despite the problems the Individual identified alcohol had
caused in his personal and professional life. Tr. at 78-79. I also find it difficult to conclude that the
Individual’s maladaptive alcohol use is unlikely to recur. The Individual testified that he had been
sober for approximately four months in 2019 before relapsing again, and at the time of the hearing,
the Individual had been abstinent fewer than three months. Tr. at 39-40. Despite his assertions that
he feels his sobriety will endure this time, the Individual has not spent enough time in a state of
sobriety to convince me that he is unlikely to return to maladaptive use. This conclusion is further
buttressed by the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual had not yet shown adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Tr. at 88-89. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that enough
time has passed, that the behavior was infrequent, or that it happened under circumstances that are
unlikely to recur so as not to cast doubt on the Individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or
judgement.
Although the Individual stated during the hearing that he believes his alcohol use was maladaptive,
he has not shown a clear and established pattern of abstinence. And although the Individual has
engaged a therapist for the purpose of, among other things, addressing matters pertaining to his
alcohol consumption, the Individual does have a previous history of treatment and relapse. Further,
there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Individual is making satisfactory progress or that
he completed a treatment program, let alone attended any required aftercare. Accordingly, the
Individual has not resolved the concerns stated in the Notification Letter pursuant to the mitigating
factors at ¶ 23(c) and (d).
Guideline I
As noted, Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) provides that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and
personality conditions impair judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 27. Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline I include:
a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has
demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health
professional;
c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual's previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence or
exacerbation;
11
d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
e) There is no indication of a current problem
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a)-(e).
As stated above, although the Individual has secured the services of a therapist, there is no
indication which specific behavior, other than the Individual’s maladaptive alcohol consumption,
the therapy intends to address. Ex. G. Further, the Individual had attended only two sessions at the
time of the hearing, and the record is bereft of any evidence that the Individual is complying with
the treatment plan or that his prognosis is good. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the Individual
has mitigated the Guideline I concerns pursuant to mitigating factor ¶ 29(a) and (b).
Regarding the remainder of the mitigating factors, the DOE Psychologist stated during her
testimony that she still held the opinion that the Individual continues to exhibit an emotional,
mental, or personality condition that could impair his reliability or judgement. Tr. at 91-92. There
is no competent evidence in the record that indicates a recent opinion by a qualified mental health
professional that suggests the condition no longer exists or is in remission. Additionally, there is
no evidence in the record, from a mental health professional or otherwise, that indicates the
Individual’s shame “about his lack of control over drinking” and the resulting “less than
forthcoming” behavior regarding his alcohol use was temporary or has since been resolved. Tr. at
57. Therefore, the mitigating factors at ¶ 29(c), (d), or (e) are not present in this case.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E, G, and I
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that granting his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals