PSH-22-0095

*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 26, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0095
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 24, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (the “Individual”) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (“Adjudicative Guidelines”), I conclude that the Individual should not be
granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed a DOE contractor in a position that requires possession of a security
clearance. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered concerning information regarding
the Individual’s alcohol use. The information prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be
evaluated by a DOE-consultant Psychiatrist (“Psychiatrist”). Afterward, the LSO informed the
Individual by letter (“Notification Letter”) that it possessed reliable information that created
substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance. In an attachment to the
Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of two witnesses and testified on
his own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the Psychiatrist. The Individual submitted
nine exhibits, marked Exhibits A through I.2 The LSO submitted nine exhibits, marked Exhibits 1
through 9.3
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines as the basis for concern regarding the Individual’s eligibility to possess a security
clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1. Guideline G provides that “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads
to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions
about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions
that could raise a security concern include “[a]lcohol-related incidents away from work, such as .
. . fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless
of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use[;]” and “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical
or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use
disorder[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(a) and (d). The SSC cited the following information. The Psychiatrist
concluded in his January 2022 report that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5), criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild,
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and the Psychiatrist reported that the
Individual’s Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test results were congruent with current heavy alcohol
consumption. Ex. 1 at 5. The Individual admitted in his November 2021 signed letter of
interrogatory (LOI) that he had been consuming four to five alcohol beverages most days. Id. In
2008, the Individual was arrested and charged with Simple Assault/Domestic Violence and False
Imprisonment, and he admitted to consuming alcohol prior to the arrest. Id. And, in 2005, the
Individual was arrested and charged with Disorderly Conduct and admitted that he had consumed
alcohol prior to this arrest. Id. The cited information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
G.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
2 The Individual submitted Ex. I after the hearing date.
3 The LSO’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 236-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This Decision will
cite to the LSO’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook where the
information is located as opposed to the page number that may be located on the page itself.
- 3 -
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. at
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The record includes the earlier-referenced LOI response the Individual submitted. Ex. 6. Therein,
he described the circumstances surrounding his past arrests and more recent alcohol consumption.
As for the 2005 incident, the Individual explained that he was arrested during a college holiday
outing after not being cooperative with security guards. Id. at 26. He explained that he had
consumed “too much” alcohol before the incident and did not recall exactly what happened. Id. at
25. He stated that he was young and irresponsible and that the event taught him a lesson. Id.
Regarding the 2008 incident, the Individual explained that it occurred after a holiday dinner when
he and his wife got into a heated argument. Id. at 24-25. The police were called and ended up
arresting and charging the Individual as cited in the SSC. He explained that he had consumed “very
little alcohol prior to the arrest” in the form of “a beer or glass of wine” with dinner. Id. at 25. The
case ended because the prosecutor decided not to pursue the charges. Id. Regarding his alcohol
consumption in November 2021, the Individual explained that he had not been intoxicated for over
a year. Id. He also explained that he was presently consuming four to five alcohol beverages most
days. Id. at 27.
The record also includes the report produced by the Psychiatrist in January 2022. During the
evaluation, the Individual stated that after his 2005 arrest, he remained in jail for five days before
being released, which concluded the incident. Ex. 7 at 35. He explained that, after the 2008
incident, he was jailed for two days. Id. Prior to the two years preceding the evaluation, he
described consuming five or more alcoholic beverages a night. Id. at 36. He described his alcohol
consumption at the time of the evaluation to be four to five alcoholic beverages over approximately
seven hours a night, every night. Id. at 35. He also reported that he consumed “six or more
[alcoholic] drinks on one occasion once a week, but feels he does not get intoxicated or buzzed.”
Id. at 36. He confirmed that his alcohol consumption caused conflict within his marriage, that he
has developed a tolerance, and that he injured himself as a result of his alcohol consumption. Id.
The Individual underwent a PEth test, and the Psychiatrist opined that the result was positive at a
level congruent with heavy alcohol consumption. Id. At the conclusion of the evaluation, the
Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for AUD, Mild, because the
Individual had developed a tolerance, he continued to consume alcohol despite negative marital
- 4 -
consequences, and he used alcohol in situations in which was is hazardous to do so. Id. at 38. The
Psychiatrist also opined that the Individual may have been consuming even more than the large
amounts of alcohol he acknowledged. Id. The Psychiatrist recommended that that the Individual
abstain from alcohol consumption one year, complete an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP),
participate in an aftercare program with the IOP or with an outpatient AUD counselor for at least
six months, attend weekly Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or similar self-help meetings for a year,
and undergo random breath alcohol tests and monthly PEth tests to provide medical evidence of
abstinence. Id.
Prior to the hearing, the Individual submitted a letter from an Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
counselor whom the Individual had been meeting with “since spring 2022” regarding his treatment
for AUD. Ex G. Therein, the EAP counselor explained, that for the six-month period preceding
the hearing, the Individual had “fully participated in his sessions.” Id. The EAP counselor also
lauded the Individual’s “ability to fully apply suggestions for treatment and show behavior
improvements” that include “his ability to quit drinking completely without reported recourse[,]
attend AA meetings regularly with insight and appreciation[,] and embed treatment goals
throughout his course of treatment with the EAP program.” Id.
The Individual’s counselor testified. This counselor has been providing both marriage and alcohol
use counseling to the Individual since June 2022. Tr. at 17. The counselor testified that the
Individual’s self-reported sobriety date is June 1, 2022. Id. at 26. The counselor testified that the
Individual’s marital issues “absolutely” contribute to his alcohol use. Id. at 25. He testified that the
Individual has been engaged in and appears honest and genuine during treatment. Id. at 18. He also
testified that the Individual denies having a problem with alcohol. Id. at 20. He testified that the
Individual’s length of treatment is presently undetermined, and they have yet to establish long-
term goals. Id. at 22. He also testified that he originally recommended that the Individual complete
at least twenty-six weeks of counseling.4 Id. at 22, 31. He testified that an IOP would not have
benefited the Individual because the Individual’s AUD was not severe. Id. at 33. He also testified
that the Individual’s AUD is presently in early remission. Id. at 23-24. He testified that, going
forward, the Individual’s treatment would focus on his marriage and alcohol use because of the
latter’s impact on his career. Id. at 25. He also testified that it “might be beneficial” for the
Individual to participate in group therapy sessions. Id. at 33-34. While the counselor did not
provide a prognosis, the counselor stated that the Individual is “very capable of remaining abstinent
if he so chooses.” Id. at 33. When opining on the likelihood that the Individual will remain
abstinent, the counselor stated “50/50. I don’t know.” Id.
The Individual’s wife testified that the Individual had been abstinent for “about 130 days.”5 Id. at
40. She testified that she has not observed him touch or consume any alcohol during that period.
Id. at 40. She also testified that he has been attending AA every day and that he stated it has been
helpful. Id. at 40-41. She observed that he has made healthy changes in lifestyle such as walking
more and heathier eating. Id. at 42.
4 The counselor also noted that alcohol use is “just one piece of” the matters for which he recommended treatment. Id.
at 22.
5 This would put the Individual’s sobriety date at May 14, 2022.
- 5 -
The Individual testified that his sobriety date is June 1, 2022. Id. at 52. He also stated that he does
not have a problem with alcohol, although he acknowledged his diagnosis of AUD.6 Id. at 52-53.
He testified that he has been attending EAP counseling about once a week;7 that he has been seeing
his individual counselor;8 and that he accomplished 110 days of AA while also consuming
podcasts, books, and other research on AUD. Id. at 54-56, 71. He explained that EAP counseling
helped him gain a better understanding of how some of his behavior regarding alcohol use had
been problematic. Id. at 57. He expressed his intent to continue treatment indefinitely with both
the EAP counselor and the individual counselor. Id. at 58-59.
The Individual testified that he accomplished his immediate goal to remain abstinent until the
hearing. Id. at 66. To do so, he had to change everything to “make every single day revolve around
going to AA[,]” “learning[,]” “and trying to prove that alcohol is not a problem.” Id. at 62. He
testified that he successfully overcame early cravings for alcohol. Id. at 63. He then clarified that
he did not believe he experienced cravings because he never felt an urge that he failed to overcome.
Id. at 109-10. Instead of consuming alcohol, he would attend an AA meeting or go for a walk. Id.
at 69. He testified that AA helped him remain abstinent. Id. at 67. He also stated that he participates
in almost every AA meeting he attends, and he described his active participation. Id. at 78-80. He
noted, however, that he has had to limit his after-meeting participation because sometimes he
would “stay longer than [his] wife wanted.” Id. at 79. The Individual also testified that he disagreed
with his counselor’s opinion that “alcohol is the driver of all the issues.” Id. at 60. As support for
his viewpoint, he stated that his marital problems have persisted despite his abstinence. Id.
However, he testified that he stills takes the advice on “how to resolve the issues.” Id. He testified
that his ultimate goal is to keep his job and keep providing for his family. Id. at 67, 74.
The Psychiatrist also testified at the hearing. The Psychiatrist noted that the Individual’s testimony
indicated that he meets the criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, given that he admitted to
overcoming cravings at the hearing instead of denying them as he did during the evaluation. Id. at
88. The Psychiatrist explained that, given the Individual’s diagnosis, the relatively short period of
his abstinence and AA attendance did not demonstrate reformation and rehabilitation of the AUD.
Id. at 89-91. However, the Psychologist testified that the IOP was no longer recommended. Id. at
91. The Psychiatrist also expressed concern with the Individual’s ambivalence regarding whether
he has an issue with alcohol. Id. at 89. The Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual’s “prognosis
is probably more on the favorable side, if he continues the treatment that he’s been in. Above 50/50
favorable.” Id. at 93.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
6 Specifically, the Individual stated, “I do agree that I checked some of the boxes that are in the DSM, so technically,
I agree with the diagnosis given by the professional counselors.” Tr. at 53.
7 The Individual testified that he had met with the EAP counselor “probably 10 to 20” times. Tr. at 55.
8 He testified that he had met with his counselor approximately twenty times. Tr. at 61. The counseling sign-in sheets
the Individual submitted reflect that he attended a total of sixteen sessions between April 2022 and September 2022.
Ex. D; Ex. F. at 1-2 (indicating that the first several listed sessions were attended by both the wife and Individual).
- 6 -
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
I find that none of the above factors apply to resolve the Guideline G concerns. Because I rely
upon much of the same evidence in applying these mitigating factors, the following analysis
addresses them together. The record does not demonstrate that the Individual acknowledges his
maladaptive alcohol use because, while he acknowledges that he had been diagnosed as meeting
the criteria for AUD, he denies that he had a problem or issue with alcohol. Furthermore, although
he has taken steps to address the concerns regarding his alcohol use, including adopting a healthier
lifestyle, abstaining, attending EAP counseling, and attending AA, he has not established a pattern
of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations for the following reasons. He has
only been abstinent for approximately four months, which is significantly less than the year
recommended by the Psychiatrist. A relatively short period of time has passed since the Individual
changed his concerning pattern of alcohol consumption, which had persisted for several years as a
part of the Individual’s daily routine until June 1. The record regarding the wife’s response to his
efforts in AA is also concerning given the intertwined nature of his marital relationship and alcohol
use. Additionally, he did not complete an IOP, attend aftercare, or complete a treatment program;
and, while the Psychiatrist no longer recommended that the Individual complete an IOP, the
Psychiatrist continued to recommend additional treatment to demonstrate reformation and
rehabilitation of the Individual’s AUD. Furthermore, while the Individual’s counselor was more
positive regarding the Individual’s progress, the counselor similarly recommended continued
counseling and did not provide a favorable opinion regarding the Individual’s likelihood of relapse.
Accordingly, I conclude that the Individual has not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
Guideline G security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
- 7 -
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should
not be granted access authorization.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals