PSH-22-0114

*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: July 12, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0114
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 15, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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 restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In a 2015 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) and subsequent
interview with an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator, the Individual disclosed
that he had been arrested on multiple occasions for driving while under the influence of alcohol
and for violent behavior after consuming alcohol. Exhibit (Ex.) 12 at 47–54, 74–76.2 On September
14, 2021, after having been granted access authorization, the Individual submitted a Personnel
Security Information Report in which he disclosed that he had been arrested for Assault, Battery,
Cruelty to Animals, Resisting, Evading or Obstructing an Officer, and Assault Upon a Peace
Officer. Ex. 7 at 4. On October 6, 2021, the Individual filed a supplemental report that contained
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 numerous exhibits offered by the LSO does not correspond to the number of pages
included in the exhibits. For example, the first page of Exhibit 7 is marked as page 48. This Decision cites to pages in
the order in which they appear in exhibits without regard for their internal pagination.
- 2 -
the affidavit of arrest, which included information that the Individual had consumed alcohol prior
to his arrest. Ex. 6 at 5.
The local security office (LSO) issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning his
alcohol use and alleged criminal conduct. Ex. 8. In his response, the Individual provided
information on prior alleged alcohol-related infractions, including multiple arrests for driving
under the influence (DUI) of alcohol, felony assault, and domestic violence. Id. at 7–13. He was
also asked to meet with a DOE-consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist) for an evaluation. Ex.
9. The DOE Psychiatrist subsequently issued a report of the evaluation (Report) in which he opined
that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD), Mild, in early remission, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders
– Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment. Id. at 10–11.
The LSO issued the Individual a letter notifying him that it possessed reliable information that
created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. 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 twelve exhibits (Ex. 1–12). The Individual submitted forty-five
exhibits (Ex. A-1–I).3 The Individual presented six witnesses and testified on his own behalf.
Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 3-4. The LSO called one witness to testify. Id. at 4.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) as the basis for its doubt concerning the
Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 1–2. “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. The SSC cited: the DOE Psychiatrist’s determination that the Individual met sufficient
diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, under the DSM-5; the Individual’s alleged binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment; and the Individual’s history of alcohol-
related incidents and arrests. Ex. 1 at 1–2. The LSO’s assertions in the SSC justify its invocation
of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c)–(d).
3 The Individual marked related exhibits with a letter followed by sequential numbers. For example, results of certain
alcohol tests submitted by the Individual are marked as exhibits B-1 through B-19 and performance evaluations the
Individual received from the DOE contractor are marked as exhibits D-1 through D-5. Thus, the Individual’s exhibit
markings do not correspond to the total number of exhibits he submitted.
- 3 -
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) (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 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
In February 2002, the Individual was arrested and charged with DUI. Ex. 8 at 6. The charge was
dismissed. Id. In May 2004, the Individual was arrested and charged with Domestic Violence,
Telephone Abuse, and False Imprisonment following a domestic dispute that occurred after he
consumed six beers. Id. at 7; see also Tr. at 138–39 (indicating that the Individual and his female
partner had an argument, that he was consuming alcohol at the time, that he seized her phone, and
that the situation then “turned into a bigger thing”); Ex. 2 at 4 (admitting that he consumed a six-
pack of beer prior to his arrest). He pleaded guilty to Domestic Violence and completed probation
and alcohol counseling classes pursuant to a court order. Ex. 8 at 7; Ex. 12 at 56. The remaining
charges were dismissed. Ex. 8 at 7.
In November 2005, the Individual was arrested and charged with Felony Assault and Disorderly
Conduct following a bar fight. Ex. 12 at 76; see also Tr. at 140–41 (indicating that he believed that
he had acted in self-defense when he struck a man to the ground who “was harassing [him and
had] went up from behind [] and scratched [the Individual] . . . under [his] eye”). The charges were
dismissed. Id. The Individual had consumed four beers prior to this arrest. Ex. 2 at 3.
In June 2009, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated. Ex. 8 at 8;
Ex. 12 at 49. The Individual pleaded guilty to a lesser charge of Driving While Ability Impaired.
Ex. 8 at 8. As a result of this plea, the Individual’s driver’s license was revoked for approximately
one year, he was sentenced to nine months of probation, and he was ordered to attend additional
alcohol-related counseling. Ex. 9 at 4; Ex. 12 at 74. Following his 2009 arrest, the Individual
- 4 -
abstained from alcohol for “a little over three years” before resuming alcohol consumption. Tr. at
127.
On September 11, 2021, a police officer responded to a call from a woman who stated that her
boyfriend, the Individual, had hit her, took her phone, and left on his motorcycle. Ex. 6 at 4; but
see Tr. at 146–47 (reflecting the Individual’s testimony at the hearing that he had not struck his
girlfriend, that she fell trying to evade him because “[s]he thought [he] was going to grab her, and
he wasn’t,” and that she later said that the police had embellished her report). The report prepared
by the responding officer also indicated that the Individual’s girlfriend said that “he is irate when
he is under the influence of alcohol.” Id. at 5. When police officers arrived at the Individual’s
home, they found him asleep and smelling of alcohol with liquor bottles around him. Id.
Eventually, the Individual was arrested and charged with Assault Against a Household Member;
Battery Against a Household Member; Cruelty to Animals; Resisting, Evading, Obstructing an
Officer; and Assault Upon a Peace Officer. Ex. 7 at 4, 9.
On September 14, 2021, the Individual notified the LSO of his arrest and related charges. Ex. 7 at
4, 9. The Individual provided the LSO with a copy of the affidavit of arrest on October 6, 2021.
Ex. 6.
In January 2022, the LSO issued the Individual the LOI. Ex. 8. In addition to providing further
details about his past criminal charges, the Individual indicated in his response to the LOI that he
did not feel he had a problem with alcohol, nor did he believe he needed any alcohol-related
counseling or treatment. Id. at 17–18. The Individual also expressed his intention to drink in the
future on “special occasions.” Id. at 19.
On March 3, 2022, The Individual met with the DOE Psychiatrist for a clinical interview. Ex. 9 at
3. The Individual reported to the DOE Psychiatrist that he had last consumed alcohol on February
10, 2022, three weeks prior to the clinical interview, when he claimed that he drank two beers. Id.
at 7. Immediately following the clinical interview, the Individual provided a sample for a
phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test. Id. at 9. The results of the PEth test were positive at a level of 77
ng/mL. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that it was improbable that the Individual’s self-reported
alcohol consumption could have produced a positive PEth test, and that the Individual had likely
“significantly under-reported his actual drinking habits in the month before the PEth test.” Id.
In his Report, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria
for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, in Early Remission under the DSM-5.4 Id. at 10. He also opined that
the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Id. at 11. In order for
the Individual to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the DOE Psychiatrist
recommended that he participate in treatment of “moderate intensity,” such as participating in
4 Specifically, the DOE Psychiatrist determined that the Individual met the following diagnostic criteria for AUD: (2)
persistent desire or unsuccessful efforts to cut down or control alcohol use; (6) continued alcohol use despite having
persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol; and (8)
recurrent alcohol use in situations in which it is physically hazardous. Ex. 9 at 10. The DOE Psychiatrist determined
that the Individual met these diagnostic criteria based on the positive PEth test, which showed that he was consuming
alcohol despite his stated desire not to do so, his alcohol-related arrests involving violence which demonstrated social
or interpersonal problems influenced by alcohol, and his arrests for DUI which showed that he used alcohol in
physically hazardous situations. Id.
- 5 -
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings under the guidance of a sponsor at least weekly or
undergoing alcohol abuse counseling for one year, and abstain from alcohol consumption for the
duration of his treatment. Id. at 12.
At the hearing, the Individual asserted that he had honestly reported his alcohol consumption to
the DOE Psychiatrist and noted that the positive PEth test occurred at a time when he was inhaling
alcohol fumes on a daily basis in the workplace. Tr. at 117–25. The Individual took a polygraph
test to support his claim that he had not consumed any alcohol between February 12, 2022, and his
meeting with the DOE Psychiatrist. Ex. C. While the test produced a valid result, which the
examiner opined was evidence that the Individual had answered truthfully, I assigned the results
of the polygraph test minimal evidentiary weight because the Individual did not submit any
qualifications of the polygraph tester into the record and because of the well-known limitations of
polygraph testing.5
The Individual also testified that, at the time of the positive PEth test, he was exposed to isopropyl
alcohol fumes in the course of his work in an enclosed space on a daily basis. Tr. at 120–24; see
also Tr. at 19–20, 67–71 (providing confirmation from managerial personnel with personal
knowledge of the Individual’s work that he was exposed to alcohol fumes on a daily basis for up
to 10 hours per day); Ex. E-1, E-2 (reflecting the label of a jar of isopropyl alcohol used in the
Individual’s workplace). He presented four articles concerning the effects of alcohol vapor
inhalation, including two indicating that inhalation of alcohol vapors can cause positive
Ethylglucuronide (EtG) tests. Ex. G-1, G-2, G-3, G-4. The DOE Psychiatrist disagreed with the
Individual’s conclusion, explaining that it was his opinion that the inhalation of isopropyl alcohol
could not produce a positive PEth test because isopropyl alcohol does not contain any ethanol and
therefore could not produce the PEth biomarker which is solely created by ethanol. Tr. at 166–70.
When asked about the Individual’s exhibits claiming that inhalation or absorption of alcohol could
affect EtG testing, the DOE Psychiatrist stated:
the key thing is, you’re talking about sources of ethanol affecting the EtG, the
ethanol glycosylate molecule, and not prop[anol]. Secondly, EtG is not a test I’ve
used. I did, in my lab, a PEth test. Actually, EtG can be thrown off more by passive
exposure of other sources of ethanol, but again, that’s kind of an academic point
‘cause we’re not talking about ethanol and nor are they claiming, that I’m aware,
that he got any odd exposures to ethanol that caused his PEth to go up.
5 Polygraph test results are of questionable probative value. See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 312 (1998)
(“[T]here is simply no way to know in a particular case whether a polygraph examiner’s conclusion is accurate,
because certain doubts and uncertainties plague even the best polygraph exams.”). Additionally, OHA has assigned
limited or no weight to the results of polygraph tests in many prior cases. See, e.g. Personnel Security Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-18-0025 at 4 (2018) (“I have assigned [the polygraph test] minimal evidentiary weight due to the well-
documented limitations of polygraph testing.”); see also Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-12-0144
at 8 (2012) (“I assign no probative value to the testimony of the polygraph technician or the results of his polygraph
examination [].”); Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. TSO-1023 (2011) at 4, note 7 (explaining that due to
“reliability issues associated with polygraph examinations I did not consider this evidence in my deliberations”).
Decisions issued by OHA are available on the OHA website located at http://www.energy.gov/OHA.
- 6 -
Tr. at 169-70.6
The Individual testified that he had not consumed any alcohol since March 2022, when he
consumed alcohol two days in a row after receiving the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report because he
“was bummed out” at the DOE Psychiatrist’s conclusions. Id. at 118. The Individual underwent
PEth tests in June, July, August, and September. Ex. A-1–A-4. Each of these tests was negative
for traces of alcohol consumption. Id. Starting on July 25, 2022, the Individual provided urine
samples for EtG testing every two to five days until October 6, 2022. Ex. B-1–B-24. All of these
samples came back negative for traces of alcohol consumption. Id.
The Individual provided records showing that he has regularly attended AA meetings since August
24, 2022. Ex. I. He testified that these meetings helped him to come to the realization that he has
some problems with alcohol, and that he intends to continue attending AA meetings in order to
work on these problems. Tr. at 129–30. However, he does not have an AA sponsor, and, although
he testified to having worked the twelve steps of the AA program, he was unable to name the AA
steps he claimed to have completed. Id. at 151–52.
At the hearing, management and supervisory personnel with personal knowledge of the
Individual’s conduct in the workplace testified that he is a trusted and reliable employee. Id. at 20–
25, 55–60, 71–76. A counselor from the DOE contractor’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
also testified. Id. at 33–35. He explained that he and the Individual had met for eight counseling
sessions between approximately October 2021 and February 2022 in which they discussed
relationships and family dynamics, and that there was an opportunity for up to two more sessions
through EAP if needed. Id. at 39–44, 46–47. A friend of the Individual and the Individual’s son
also testified as to the Individual’s trustworthiness and reliability. Id. at 82, 85–87, 91–93, 97, 101,
109.
After observing the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist testified that, although the Individual’s AUD
was in remission, he was too early in the recovery process to have established rehabilitation. Id. at
178–79, 207–08. While the DOE Psychiatrist indicated that the Individual’s AA meeting
attendance was positive for his recovery, he expressed concern that the Individual did not have an
AA sponsor to help him realize the full benefits of the AA program. Id. at 185. He opined that the
Individual’s prognosis was “fair on a good, fair, poor [scale],” explaining that he did not think the
Individual had shown that he had developed the skills necessary to deal with commonplace
disappointments without resorting to alcohol, and he cited as evidence the Individual’s
consumption of alcohol in response to the disappointment of receiving the unfavorable information
in the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report. Id. at 180–81.
6 The Individual objected to the DOE Psychiatrist’s testimony on the ground that the DOE Psychiatrist is not an expert
in chemistry. Tr. at 188–89. In response, DOE counsel noted that while the DOE Psychiatrist is not an expert in
chemistry, he is a medical doctor and as such is qualified to testify as to how chemicals affect the human body. Id. at
210. In addition to being a medical doctor, the DOE Psychiatrist has authored an academic article on the interpretation
of PEth tests in the national security setting. Ex. 10 at 2. In light of the DOE Psychiatrist’s medical training and
scholarship specifically related to the interpretation of PEth tests, I am convinced that he is sufficiently expert in the
interpretation of PEth tests to opine as to whether isopropyl alcohol could produce a positive PEth test.
- 7 -
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline G
The Individual’s alcohol-related arrests and the DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion that the Individual met
sufficient diagnostic criteria under the DSM-5 for a diagnosis of AUD justify the LSO’s invocation
of Guideline G.7 Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c). Conditions that could mitigate a security
concern 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; or,
(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.
Id. at ¶ 23(a)–(d).
7 I find that the LSO’s allegation in the SSC that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, which was based solely on the DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion in his Report, is not sufficiently substantiated to
constitute a security concern under Guideline G. See Ex. 1 at 1 (citing the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report). At the hearing,
the DOE Psychiatrist explained that he did not think the Individual was a habitual consumer of alcohol, but that the
Individual’s five alcohol-related arrests showed that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment. Tr. at 181–84; see also Ex. 9 at 11 (indicating that the DOE Psychiatrist “would not consider 5 episodes in
20 years ‘habitual,’ and therefore would conclude that [the Individual] is a binge consumer of alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment”). The DOE Psychiatrist indicated that he had defined binge consumption of alcohol as “having a
blood alcohol of 0.08 or greater, and on an occasional, rather than regular, habitual basis.” Id. at 182. He denied having
considered how many times the Individual consumed alcohol to intoxication in the year prior to the clinical interview
or in any other prior one-year period. Id. at 184. While the Adjudicative Guidelines do not define binge consumption
of alcohol, OHA has generally accepted definitions of binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment
based on drinking a large volume of alcohol in a short period of time on a minimum number of occasions within a
specified time period. See, e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-18-0034 at 4, n. 5 (2018) (accepting
a DOE-contracted Psychologist’s definition of binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment as “a
pattern of drinking to levels of intoxication by drinking heavy amounts of alcohol in a short time period with the
intention of becoming intoxicated or drinking to high levels of intoxication less than once a month, but at least several
times a year, that results in impaired judgment”); see also Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-17-0041
at 5, n. 5 (2017) (listing various definitions of problematic alcohol consumption, including the Substance Abuse and
Mental Health Services Administration’s definition of ‘binge drinking’ for men as “five or more drinks within two
hours on at least one day in the past 30 days”). At a minimum, the LSO must employ a definition of binge drinking
that alleges that the behavior occurred with sufficient frequency or severity to constitute a security concern. The DOE
Psychiatrist’s opinion, on which the LSO relied, does not do so because it effectively amounts to an allegation that the
Individual has become intoxicated on multiple occasions over multiple decades of his adult life. Absent additional
information as to the nature of the Individual’s history of alcohol consumption, the LSO has not asserted sufficient
facts to support the allegation that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.
- 8 -
While the Individual has provided strong evidence through alcohol testing that he has abstained
from alcohol since at least June 2022, and has avoided alcohol-related incidents since his arrest in
September 2021, I find that an insufficient period of time has elapsed for me to conclude that the
Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption does not cast doubt on his reliability,
trustworthiness, and judgment. Notably, the Individual previously relapsed after abstaining from
alcohol for three years following his 2009 arrest and alcohol-related counseling. The passage of
only about seven months between the Individual’s last self-reported alcohol consumption and the
hearing, of which only a portion was supported by alcohol testing, is too little to establish that the
Individual will not return to problematic alcohol consumption again. Moreover, the Individual has
repeatedly shown poor judgment after consuming alcohol, and he has not attributed his pattern of
alcohol misuse to unusual circumstances. Therefore, I find that the first mitigating condition under
Guideline G is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(a).
While the Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use and taken steps to overcome
his problems with alcohol, he has not established a pattern of modified consumption or abstinence
from alcohol in accordance with treatment recommendations. Id. at ¶ 23(b). In his Report, the DOE
Psychiatrist stated that he would consider the Individual rehabilitated after approximately one year
of treatment, which he would date from the Individual’s last drink. The record shows that the
Individual began treatment approximately two months prior to the hearing and last consumed
alcohol approximately seven months prior to the hearing. Therefore, as the Individual has not
established a pattern of abstinence in compliance with treatment recommendations, I find that the
second mitigating condition under Guideline G is inapplicable. Id.
The Individual relapsed multiple times following alcohol-related counseling after DUIs. Further,
the Individual has not participated in AA under the guidance of a sponsor, as recommended by the
DOE Psychiatrist, and did not present testimony from any witnesses knowledgeable about his
participation in AA who could testify as to his progress therein. For these reasons, I find the third
mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(c). The fourth mitigating condition is not applicable
because it is undisputed that the Individual has not completed the treatment program recommended
by the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
In light of the Individual’s history of alcohol related incidents, the relatively short duration of his
abstinence, his failure to obtain an AA sponsor and lack of proven treatment progress, and the
opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist that his prognosis for recovery from his AUD is only fair, I find
that the Individual’s reliability and trustworthiness remain compromised by his alcohol
consumption. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all 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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
- 9 -
Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals