PSH-22-0105

*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: June 9, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0105
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 28, 2022
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “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, 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 be denied.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In completing a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in June 2021, the
Individual disclosed that he had twice previously been charged with “driving under the influence
of alcohol” (DUI), once in 2001 and once in 2005. Exhibit (Ex.) 8 at 31-32. Subsequently, the
Individual completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in August 2021 and was evaluated by a DOE
consultant psychologist (Psychologist) in November 2021. Ex. 6; Ex. 3. The Psychologist opined
that the Individual “habitually (multiple times a month) consumes alcohol to a serious level of
intoxication, beyond that which has been found to impair judgment.” Ex. 3 at 6-7.
Due to unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol use, the Local Security
Office (LSO) informed the Individual in a Notification Letter that it possessed reliable information
that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. In the Summary
of Security Concerns, attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
1 Access authorization is defined 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). Such
authorization will be referred to variously in this Decision as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
information raised security concerns under Guideline G (alcohol consumption) and Guideline E
(personal conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 2.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations by requesting an administrative review hearing. Ex. 1. The Director of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I
subsequently conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel
submitted eight numbered exhibits (Ex. 1-8) into the record and presented the testimony of the
Psychologist. The Individual introduced twelve lettered exhibits (Ex. A-L) into the record and
presented the testimony of six witnesses, including the Individual himself. The hearing transcript
in the case will be cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
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 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).
An 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). An 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.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the Summary of Security Concerns,
which set forth the derogatory information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility
for access authorization. The information in the letter specifically cites Guideline G and Guideline
E of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 2. Guideline G relates to security risks arising from excessive
alcohol consumption. “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. In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon
the Psychologist’s November 2021 determination that the Individual had a “clinical diagnosis” of
“habitual excessive use of alcohol.” Ex. 2 at 4. The LSO also cited the Individual’s 2001 and 2005
DUI arrests. Id. at 3-4.
- 3 -
Guideline E concerns “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules or regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. This conduct
can call into question an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or
sensitive information. Id. In citing Guideline E, the LSO alleged that, given his history with
“alcohol issues,” the Individual could have used his “knowledge of the consequences” to “avoid
the current pattern of overuse of alcohol, and his “failure to recognize [his] overuse of alcohol as a
pattern and reduce or alter [his] consumption, leads to concerns regarding the ‘whole person’
concept.” Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
As stated above, the Individual completed an LOI in August 2021. Ex. 6. In the LOI, the Individual
described his typical alcohol consumption, stating that, when he consumes alcohol on weeknights,
he typically consumes up to four beers or four mixed drinks. Id. at 5. On weekends, he stated that
he generally consumes eight to ten beers or mixed drinks over a period of approximately six to
eight hours. Id. In a July 2021 interview by an Office of Personnel Management (OPM)
investigator, the Individual stated that, due to his 2001 DUI, he was required to complete an alcohol
education course. Ex. 7 at 7. He additionally completed an “Advanced Rehabilitation Disposition
Program” in 2002. Id. The Individual further stated that, as a result of his 2005 DUI arrest, he was
required to complete an additional eight alcohol education classes and attend Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings. Id. at 8.
In November 2021, the Individual underwent an evaluation with the Psychologist. Ex. 3. During
the evaluation, the Individual explained his typical alcohol consumption pattern, which consisted
of him consuming “two to three drinks over three hours, two to three nights during the week, and
up to ten drinks over eight to ten hours on one weekend day, maybe three weekends a month.” Id.
at 4. The Individual explained that, about once a month, he would consume ten drinks over eight
hours on both weekend days. Id. The Individual also explained that, on at least six occasions in the
prior year, he consumed so much alcohol that he could not recall portions of the previous evening,
which he characterized as having “blacked-out.”2 Id. at 5.
In his report (Report), the Psychologist noted that the Individual had described “two different types
of drinking occasions.” Id. The first, and most common, consisted of the Individual consuming
eight to ten alcoholic beverages over the course of an eight-to-twelve-hour period. Id. The
Individual stated that this pattern of consumption occurs approximately three to four times per
month on one weekend day. Id. The Psychologist stated that the “second drinking situation”
occurred once or twice per month, during which the Individual would consume 10 to 12 alcoholic
beverages over four to six hours. Id. at 4-5. The Report indicated that this second pattern of
consumption often occurred in a bar and resulted in “serious levels of intoxication,” which resulted
in “brown-outs” several times per year. Id. at 5.
As part of the evaluation, the Psychologist ordered a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which
measured the Individual’s blood PEth level at 268 ng/mL. Id. The Report noted that a result “at this
level [was] congruent with heavy alcohol consumption.” Id. Ultimately, the Psychologist
2 The Psychologist characterized these occasions as “brownout[s]” based on the Individual’s description of his
memory loss. Ex. 3 at 6.
- 4 -
determined that the Individual’s 2001 and 2005 DUIs were “too old to warrant a formal DSM-5
Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) diagnosis;” however, the Psychologist concluded that the Individual
qualified for a “clinical diagnosis” of “habitual excessive use of alcohol” to “a level that will impair
his judgment.” Id. at 6-7. He noted that the DUIs were “only relevant in that they indicate a long-
standing tendency to drink heavily[, and] makes his willingness to change questionable.” Id. at 8.
The Psychologist recommended that the Individual become abstinent from alcohol for a period of
12 months and that he participate in an intensive outpatient program (IOP) of 12 to 16 weeks, with
a minimum of nine hours of therapeutic and educational meetings per week, consisting of both
group and individual components. Id. at 8. He added that the Individual should undergo PEth testing
every six weeks “to support and provide documentation of his abstinence.” Id.
At the hearing, six witnesses testified on the Individual’s behalf: a supervisor (Supervisor), a friend
and former coworker (Coworker), a friend and colleague (Colleague), a personal friend (Friend),
his girlfriend (Girlfriend), and the Individual himself. The Supervisor testified that he had known
the Individual for approximately four years and had socialized with him on approximately five
occasions at a sports bar. Tr. at 15-16, 18. The Supervisor stated that he had observed the Individual
consuming alcohol at the sports bar, but he did not recall ever witnessing any concerning behavior
related to the Individual’s alcohol consumption. Id. at 18-19. He also testified that he trusted the
Individual’s judgment. Id. at 21.
The Coworker testified that he had worked with the Individual on a daily basis for approximately
eight years and could not recall ever seeing the Individual impaired while at work. Id. at 27-29.
The Coworker also testified to regularly attending gatherings at the sports bar where alcohol was
present. Id. at 29. He stated that he did not recall ever seeing the Individual drink excessively,
though he indicated that he could not remember how many drinks the Individual would generally
consume. Id. at 30-31. The Coworker recalled that the Individual attended a card game at the
Coworker’s home, and the Coworker stated that he believed this was the only time that he had ever
seen the Individual “drunk.” Id. at 33-34.
The Colleague testified that she first became close with the Individual in 2015 when they became
coworkers, and they eventually became friends outside of work. Id. at 42-44. The Colleague stated
that she occasionally attended social events with the Individual, and although she felt he was
“buzzed” at some of these events, she did not believe his judgment was impaired. Id. at 46-48. She
stated that she finds the Individual to be both reliable and trustworthy. Id. at 52.
The Friend testified that he met the Individual approximately ten years ago when the Individual
first began visiting the sports bar where the Friend worked as a bartender. Id. at 59. The Friend
stated that, eventually, he and the Individual became friends. Id. The Friend explained that, in the
past, the Individual would come to the sports bar approximately once a month, and the Individual
would typically consume two or three drinks over a period of two or three hours. Id. at 61-62. The
Friend recalled that he and the Individual would consume alcohol at social events together and
expressed his belief that the Individual’s consumption of alcohol in these situations was “no more
than the average person.” Id. at 62-63. The Friend also testified that he felt the Individual had good
judgment. Id. at 69.
- 5 -
The Girlfriend testified that she had been in a relationship with the Individual for seven years and
had lived with him for approximately five or six years. Id. at 75-76. She explained that she and the
Individual would typically consume two to three drinks together at the sports bar. Id. at 77. The
Girlfriend testified that she does not believe the Individual consumes alcohol excessively, nor does
she recall ever seeing him “blackout” due to his alcohol consumption. Id. at 83. The Girlfriend
testified that she believes that the Individual “overexaggerated” his alcohol consumption during
the psychological evaluation. Id. at 85. She stated that she last observed the Individual consume
alcohol in April 2022 when the two shared a carafe of sake. Id. at 79. She stated that the Individual
was enrolled in an “alcohol counseling class” and had been attending the AA meetings, both of
which she felt he was “taking…seriously.” Id. at 90-91. The Girlfriend explained that she would
support the Individual in permanently abstaining from alcohol, and, if necessary, she would be
willing to permanently abstain herself. Id. at 98.
At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf. He explained that, after his DUIs in 2001
and 2005, he did not “think of [himself] as having some sort of alcohol disorder” but believed that
he had “made a couple of stupid decisions” in choosing to drive after he had consumed alcohol. Id.
at 141. The Individual stated that he thought he could still “socially drink” without issue, so long
as he did not drive, and that he “made a conscious decision” to “eliminate the driving issue” after
he had consumed alcohol and became “a huge advocate of not drinking and driving.” Id. at 135-
136, 141. The Individual explained that, following his 2005 DUI arrest, he attended “a few months
of AA” and obtained a sponsor. Id. at 141-142, 144. However, he explained that he felt that the
meetings “reinforce[d] [his] perception that…[he] did not have an active problem with alcohol”
because he felt that the people he observed in the meetings had a “more serious condition” due to
“psychological and emotional problems.” Id. at 142. He testified that although he was abstaining
from alcohol while he was participating in AA, he stopped attending AA meetings because he
“thought that [he] really was a different type of person than the people that had to go there, the
people that showed they needed alcohol in their li[ves]…and [he] didn’t see that happening in” his
life. Id. at 143-144.
The Individual testified that, after he stopped participating in AA, there were periods in life where
he voluntarily and successfully abstained from alcohol. Id. at 136-137. He explained that, from
approximately 2006 to 2009, he abstained from alcohol as he was dating a woman who opposed
the consumption of alcohol for religious purposes, and he wanted to respect her values. Id. at 137.
He further explained that he enjoys fitness and “like[s] to stay in shape,” and as such, there would
“be months at a time” where he would choose to abstain from alcohol to support his fitness goals.
Id.
Turning to the evaluation with the Psychologist, the Individual testified that he felt that he
“probably overestimated” the amount of alcohol he described himself as consuming “in an attempt
to not underestimate because” it was difficult for him to “put down numbers for a pattern that’s not
there.” Id. at 113. The Individual testified that he believed that his PEth level was “so elevated” as,
the weekend prior to taking the test, he consumed four to five alcoholic beverages on Saturday and
four alcoholic beverages on Sunday. Id. at 116-117. After the psychological evaluation had ended,
the Individual testified, the Psychologist had “mentioned that it would be a good idea to cut [his
alcohol consumption] to…one or two drinks” if the Individual chose to consume alcohol. Id. at
111. As such, from approximately November 2021 to April 2022, the Individual stated that he
limited his alcohol consumption to one to two alcoholic beverages per sitting. Id.
- 6 -
The Individual testified that, in April 2022, he chose to abstain from alcohol as his life became
busy with family responsibilities, a pending medical procedure, and his fitness goals. Id. at 111-
112. When the Individual received the Notification Letter and Summary of Security Concerns from
the DOE, he sought out a counseling service. Id. at 120. In May 2022, the counseling service
administered a Global Appraisal of Individual Needs (GAIN) Assessment. Ex. A. The Individual
testified that, as a result of the assessment, the counseling service informed him that he did not
qualify for a substance abuse program and recommended that he seek out an alcohol education
course. Id.; Tr. at 120. The Individual stated that he was unable to locate an alcohol education
course in his town, and as such, he conducted internet research and found a “reputable online
company” that offered a 16-hour course, which he successfully completed at the end of June 2022.
Id. at 120; Ex. B. The Individual testified that he additionally sought out an IOP, pursuant to the
Psychologist’s recommendations. Tr. at 123. The Individual stated that he located a rehabilitative
organization and provided the social worker (Social Worker) there with a copy of the
Psychologist’s Report. Id. at 123. According to the Individual, after reviewing the Report, the
Social Worker informed him that she would be able to “get [him] into a program” that will satisfy
the Psychologist’s recommendations. Id. at 124.
The Individual testified that he enrolled in the program (Program) and had been attending for
approximately four weeks as of the time of the hearing.3 Id. He stated that, in his time with the
Program, he has learned how to “come back to [himself] and evaluate [himself] on an individual
basis.” Id. at 131. The Individual testified that although he sought individual counseling through
the program, he is currently on a waiting list due to a high demand for individual counseling.4 Id.
at 124. However, he noted that, while he is waiting for individual counseling sessions, he has been
attending AA on a “weekly basis” as a “supplement.” Id. He stated that he feels that AA has helped
him to “self-evaluate,” but he feels “out of place” because “there are people in there that have so
bad of issues [sic] with alcohol.” Id. at 146. The Individual testified that although he does not have
a sponsor, he is utilizing the Social Worker to talk “intimately about alcohol” and “about emotional
things.”5 Id. He stated that as part of his Program, he undergoes random urinalysis tests for alcohol,
all of which have been negative. Id. at 131, 156; see Ex. K. Additionally, the Individual testified
that he had completed three PEth tests, all of which were negative.6 Id. at 132; Ex. C, D, K.
The Psychologist testified after observing the hearing and listening to the testimony presented. He
stated that he felt that the Individual’s testimony at the hearing was “a little bit concerning” as he
did not believe that the Individual had overestimated his alcohol consumption during the
psychological evaluation, and he felt that the Individual’s testimony that he had exaggerated his
consumption was a minimization. Id. at 173, 192. The Psychologist testified that he believes the
3 The Individual’s program schedule indicates that the Individual is enrolled in classes that meet four times per week
for a total of seven and a half hours. Ex. F.
4 The Individual’s testimony is supported by his Exhibit F, a document detailing his Program.
5 A letter from the Social Worker states that the Individual has attended all scheduled appointments, is engaged and
participates in group discussions, and is “good at communicating with his treatment team.” Ex. J.
6 Although the Individual’s exhibit indicates that he took a PEth test on May 24, 2022, July 6, 2022, and August 8,
2022, only two negative PEth tests are in the record as duplicates of the May 24, 2022, results were submitted. See
Ex. C, D, K.
- 7 -
Individual to be “a man of good character” and believed him when he testified to “cutting down”
his alcohol consumption to a “reasonable level” following the evaluation and to abstaining as of
April 2022. Tr. at 173-174. However, he noted that, “when somebody drinks that heavily for that
long, generally it’s hard for them to give up the habit. And so, if they start to drink again, they will
often go back to drinking at the level that they were drinking.” Id. at 174. He also stated that
although he believes the Individual to be “capable” of limiting himself to two drinks on any given
occasion, he “suspect[ed]” that “there will be times” when the Individual will “exceed that.” Id. at
193. The Psychologist opined that although he did not believe that the Individual could maintain
permanent abstinence from alcohol, he had “a high level of confidence” that the Individual could
“drink at a reasonable level” and “not get intoxicated” over the next year. Id. at 178.
Regarding the Psychologist’s recommendations, he testified that he was “not pleased with” the
Individual’s “IOP” because it was “not even a standard IOP. It [was] an educational program.” Id.
at 147. However, the Psychologist stated that he thought that the Individual had “done about
everything he could – that he knew to do,” and the Psychologist “was impressed that he went online
and tried to figure things out.” Id. The Psychologist further expressed concern that the Individual
had not yet been able to engage in counseling, and although it was admirable that the Individual
had tried to supplement counseling with AA, the Psychologist was unsure if AA would be “a great
treatment or support system” as the Individual saw “himself being much different than most of the
people in there.” Id. at 177. Ultimately, the Psychologist opined that the Individual was showing
that he had “got it, that he underst[ood] that he…has a tendency to overdrink, to consume too much
alcohol, and he’s controlling that.” Id. at 184. He stated that he was “satisfied” with the steps the
Individual had taken and felt that the Individual “mitigated” any concerns he had. Id. at 187.
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. In resolving the question of
the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has not sufficiently mitigated the security concerns noted by the
LSO regarding Guideline G and Guideline E. I cannot find that granting the Individual’s DOE
security clearance will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with
the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(a). Therefore, I have determined that the Individual’s
security clearance should be denied. The specific findings that I make in support of this Decision
are discussed below. Due to the interconnected nature of the Guideline E and Guideline G security
concerns, I will analyze them together.
Regarding Guideline G, habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder, is a
condition that could raise a security concern and may disqualify an individual from holding a
security clearance. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(c). If an individual acknowledges the pattern
of maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and
demonstrates a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance
with treatment recommendations, the individual may be able to mitigate the security concern. Id.
at ¶ 23(b). Furthermore, an individual may be able to mitigate security concerns by successfully
completing a treatment program along with any required aftercare and demonstrating a clear and
- 8 -
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
Conduct involving questionable judgment, 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 information. Under Guideline E, an individual may be able to mitigate
the security concerns if 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. Id. at ¶ 17(c).
Furthermore, if an 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 otherwise inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is
unlikely to recur, the individual may be able to mitigate the security concerns. Id. at ¶ 17(d).
In this case, the Psychologist opined that the Individual had a clinical diagnosis of “habitual
excessive use of alcohol.” See id. at ¶ 22(c). After the Individual’s meeting with the Psychologist
in November 2021, the Individual reduced his alcohol consumption, and in April 2022, he stopped
consuming alcohol entirely. However, it appears that he began abstaining from alcohol, not due to
a recognition that his alcohol use was problematic, but as the result of his focus shifting to other
areas of his life at the time. After receiving the Psychologist’s recommendations, the Individual
completed a 16-hour alcohol education class and sought out a rehabilitative program in an attempt
to meet the Psychologist’s IOP recommendations. When he was unable to participate in individual
counseling through the Program, he supplemented it with AA. However, as of the date of the
hearing, the Individual has not completed the rehabilitative program, nor has he started individual
counseling. See id. at ¶ 23(d). Furthermore, he expressed that he saw himself as different from the
other AA attendees, indicating that he has yet to acknowledge that alcohol poses a problem in his
life. As such, I cannot find that the Individual has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol
use. See id. at ¶ 23(b).
Since becoming abstinent, the Individual has submitted to random urine alcohol tests and
underwent two PEth tests,7 all of which were negative for the consumption of alcohol. However,
the Individual has only been abstinent from alcohol for approximately four months. Although I
recognize that the Psychologist is satisfied with the actions the Individual has taken to address his
excessive use of alcohol and believes that the Individual will continue to be successful in
consuming alcohol at a reasonable level without becoming intoxicated, he also stated that it can be
challenging for individuals who have consumed heavy amounts of alcohol for long periods to
maintain reasonable alcohol consumption should they consume again. Therefore, given that the
Individual is in the early stages of his abstinence, I cannot yet find that that Individual has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Id.
Regarding the Individual’s 2001 and 2005 DUI arrests, the Individual made clear in his testimony
that, after the most recent arrest, he made a commitment to never drive after consuming alcohol, a
claim that is supported by the fact that over 15 years have passed without another arrest. See id. at
7 Although I note that the Individual submitted an exhibit indicating that he underwent three PEth tests, the record only
contains the results for two of them. Ex. C, D.
- 9 -
¶ 17(c). However, the Individual participated in alcohol education and AA following these arrests
and continued to engage in maladaptive alcohol use. Id. Being that it is unclear to me whether the
Individual has yet to acknowledge his problematic usage of alcohol, he has not yet completed his
rehabilitative program, and he has only been abstinent from alcohol for four months, I cannot find
that the Guideline E security concern is mitigated. See id. at ¶17(d).
For the foregoing reasons, I conclude that the Individual has not sufficiently resolved the security
concerns set forth in the Notification Letter with respect to Guideline G and Guideline E.
VI. Conclusion
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 have found that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
the security concerns associated with Guideline G and Guideline E. 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 have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should be denied. This Decision may be appealed in accordance
with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals