PSH-22-0137

*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: August 24, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0137
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 28, 2022
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
On July 1, 2021, the Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP)
to a local security office (LSO) in which he disclosed that he: was previously addicted to
methamphetamine (“meth”); had used meth approximately 1500 times between January 2011 and
May 2020; had used cocaine or crack cocaine approximately 20 times between 2011 and 2017;
was previously addicted to heroin; had used heroin approximately 300 times between January 2011
and September 2015; smoked marijuana approximately 400 times between January 2011 and June
2020; used psychedelic mushrooms approximately 15 times between 2011 and June 2020; had
used N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT) twice between 2011 and 2020; abused Percocet on two or three
occasions in 2015; and had abused Xanax several times between 2015-2018. Exhibit (Ex.) 6 at 1,
52-58.
An Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator conducted an Enhanced Subject
Interview (ESI) of the Individual on July 16, 2021, in which the Individual was questioned about
his drug use, drug related arrests, and illegal purchase of drugs or controlled substances. Ex. 7 at
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 -
96–102. The Individual informed the OPM investigator that he: was on probation from October
2014 to June 2017; had tested positive for meth, marijuana and heroin on multiple occasions while
on probation from 2014 to 2017; had purchased meth from January 2011 to May 2020; had sold
meth to support his meth habit; had used his father’s money to buy heroin; had purchased
marijuana from street dealers or his sister; had purchased and grown psychedelic mushrooms; was
arrested and charged with misdemeanor possession of a controlled substance in July 2015; was
arrested in September 2015 for a juvenile probation violation after attempting to submit someone
else’s urine sample during a drug test; had been required to complete an inpatient treatment
program; and had been charged with felony possession of a controlled substance and possession
of drug paraphernalia in August 2016. Ex. 7 at 97-101.
Because of the Individual’s extensive illegal drug use and associated criminal activity, the LSO
requested that the Individual undergo an evaluation by a DOE-contracted Psychologist
(Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the Individual on April 4, 2022. Ex. 4
at 2. During the CI, the Individual reported that he began using marijuana, meth, and heroin daily
at approximately age 13. Ex. 4 at 2. He stated that his substance use problems were supported by
his father and two sisters who also engaged in substance abuse. Ex. 4 at 2. The Individual reported
that he used meth until May 2020, and he used marijuana until June 2020. Ex. 4 at 2. The
Individual reported that his last illegal drug use occurred in August 2021 when he used DMT twice
during a two-week period. Ex. 4 at 5. The Individual also informed the Psychologist that he had
received inpatient treatment for stimulant dependence from June 2016 to August 2016, and
outpatient treatment for that disorder from July 2017 to August 2017. Ex. 4 at 4. The Individual
reported that he had received intensive outpatient therapy from a counselor and was being treated
by a Psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist) since March 13, 2013, for Anxiety, Attention-Deficit
Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and substance abuse.2 Ex. 4 at 2, 4.
In addition to conducting the CI of the Individual, the Psychologist administered a urine drug
screen and had him undergo a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test to detect alcohol
consumption during the previous several weeks. Ex. 4 at 2. The PEth test was negative. Ex. 4 at 5.
The Individual’s drug screen was positive for amphetamine but negative for all other substances.
Ex. 4 at 5. A consulting DOE psychiatrist who evaluated the Individual’s drug screen opined that
the Individual’s positive test for amphetamines resulted from a stimulant, Vyvanse, that had been
prescribed to him for his ADHD. Ex. 4 at 5, 29. He further opined that the negative test results
provided evidence that the Individual had not used meth, barbiturates, cocaine, marijuana,
meperidine, methadone, opiates, oxycodone, phencyclidine or propoxyphene in the days before
the test was done, or in the case of marijuana, possibly weeks before the test was done. Ex. 4 at 5,
29.
The Psychologist issued a report of his findings (the Report) on April 11, 2022, in which he opined
that the Individual met the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
2 The Psychiatrist prescribed Naltrexone, Clonazepam, and Vyvanse to treat the Individual’s anxiety, impulsiveness,
and ADHD. Ex. 4 at 4.
- 3 -
Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for Stimulant Use Disorder (SUD) in early remission. Ex. 4 at
9.3 He further opined that:
[The Individual’s] use of DMT, however, just seven months ago does not provide
enough time to determine if he has actually reformed. His casual decision to use
DMT out of “curiosity” and not for “self-medication, raises the question of the
strength of his decision to not use illicit drugs. His recent use and his admitted
motivation results in the diagnosis of Stimulant Use Disorder remaining in effect.
Ex. 4 at 9.
Noting that the Individual has been in counseling, inpatient treatment, and had received medication
nearly constantly over the last nine years, the Psychologist concluded that he “did not believe that
additional treatment other than his medication and continued counseling…would be effective.”
Ex. 4 at 10. Accordingly, the Psychologist recommended that the Individual continue with his
medications and therapy for as long as his therapists believe he will benefit, and that the Individual
undergo urine drug screens at least once every four weeks for six more months. Ex. 4 at 10.
After receiving the Report, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing
a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him 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 the Administrative Judge
in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took
testimony from five witnesses: the Individual, his coworker (Coworker), his prior manager
(Manager), the Psychiatrist, and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-22-
0137 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted seven exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through
7. The Individual submitted six exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through F.
The Individual’s Exhibit A is an undated letter from the director of the substance abuse recovery
center (Director) where the Individual completed treatment. Ex. A. The Director stated that the
recovery program consisted of intensive group therapy, individual therapy, case management and
life skills. Ex. A. He confirmed that the Individual “completed our program in its entirety….[and]
was able to graduate, get a job and maintain his sobriety” during and after completing the program.
Ex. A. The Director asserted that the Individual is “one of the few [people he] know[s] will own
his mistakes, learn and grow from them.” Ex. A.
3 The Psychologist also diagnosed the Individual with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) and opined that the
Individual engaged in substance abuse to “attenuate his anxiety.” Ex. 4 at 8. Additionally, The Psychologist diagnosed
the Individual with Gambling Disorder (GD), Opioid Use Disorder (OUD), and Cannabis Use Disorder (CUD), each
of which he found to be in sustained remission. Ex. 4 at 8-9. The Psychologist opined that “it is important that [the
Individual’s] anxiety continues to be medically treated as I concur with previous clinicians that it motivates his
substance use,” and that the Individual’s GAD and GD will continue to require therapeutic monitoring. Ex. 4 at 10.
The Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) did not raise any security concerns specifically based upon the Individual’s
OUD, CUD, GAD, or GD diagnoses, although the record indicates that these disorders contributed to the behaviors
cited in the SSC which raised security concerns under Guideline H.
- 4 -
Exhibit B is a character reference letter from a friend who stated she has known the Individual for
eight years and met him through her son. Ex. B. She stated that the Individual has been a good
friend to her and her family and opined that he is reliable. Ex. B.
Exhibit C is a character reference letter from a close friend and former colleague who stated that
he has known the Individual since he was a child. Ex. C. The former colleague asserted that through
his observations of the Individual from adolescence through adulthood, he has seen him develop
character to correct his previous wrongs and learn to improve upon himself. Ex. C. The former
colleague described the Individual as a giving and trusting person whose integrity is engrained in
his character. Ex. C.
The Individual’s Exhibit D is a letter from the Individual’s stepfather and Exhibit E is a letter from
the Individual’s mother. His mother indicated that after she discovered that the Individual’s father
was engaging in illegal drug use and alcohol use with the Individual and his siblings, the court
system assisted her efforts to send the Individual to the recovery center where he completed
substance abuse treatment. Ex. E. The Individual’s mother and the stepfather both stated they
noticed a significant difference in the Individual after he completed treatment and provided
examples of his educational and vocational accomplishments. Ex. D; Ex. E. His mother also
asserted that the Individual has demonstrated putting his past behind him by terminating harmful
friendships, maintaining a full-time job while also taking a full-time college courseload, and
independently maintaining his own residence for the past three-and-a-half years. Ex. E.
The Individual also submitted a post-hearing exhibit, Exhibit F, a laboratory report indicating that
a urine sample provided by the Individual on November 16, 2022, tested negative for
amphetamine, barbiturate, benzodiazepine, cannabinoid, cocaine, methadone, opiate, tricyclic
antidepressant, and alcohol.
II. NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The SSC informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline H (Drug Involvement and
Substance Misuse) of the Adjudicative Guidelines, citing the Psychologist’s finding that the
Individual met that DSM-5 criteria for SUD, without rehabilitation or reformation, the Individual’s
admissions of his illegal drug involvement, and his three drug-related arrests. These allegations
adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline H. “The illegal use of controlled substances
. . . can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness, both because such
behavior may lead to physical or psychological impairment and because it raises questions about
a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 24.
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
- 5 -
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).
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 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. HEARING TESTIMONY
In order to mitigate the security concerns raised by his SUD and illegal drug involvement, the
Individual presented the testimony of four witnesses including himself to show that he has
discontinued his substance abuse and related drug involvement and that he is now reformed or
rehabilitated from his SUD as well as the other disorders that were root causes of his illegal drug
involvement.
The Coworker testified that he has known the Individual for approximately one year and is aware
of the security concerns involving his drug use. Tr. at 13, 16-17. The Coworker testified that he
works directly with the Individual, and he finds the Individual to be a hard worker who is
dependable, reliable, and very honest. Tr. at 16. He testified that, in the time he has known the
Individual, he has seen no indications that the Individual has ever been under the influence of
drugs. Tr. at 16-17. The Coworker also stated that the Individual has expressed his intent to avoid
returning to a lifestyle of drug use. Tr. at 18.
The Manager testified that she met the Individual when he was a child though his mother and has
known him for 15 years. Tr. at 52. She stated that she was aware of the Individual’s drug use and
recalled reading a newspaper article about the Individual’s efforts to overcome his drug addiction
several years ago. Tr. at 55. She stated that the Individual had candidly discussed his drug use
and his recovery with her when she was considering whether to hire him. Tr. at 55, 57. The
Individual told her about his father and siblings being involved in drugs and how that played a role
in his drug use. Tr. at 55-56. The Manager asserted that when the Individual disclosed his past
drug problems to her, he did not present it from a victimized perspective, nor did he make excuses
about it, or appear deceptive, instead, he “just seemed to own the troubles he’d had in the past and
seemed … eager to try to move beyond all of that.” Tr. at 58. She testified that she trusts him, and
he has turned out be a great employee. Tr. at 58. She stated that other workers really enjoy working
with him and appreciate his willingness to step in and help whenever needed. Tr. at 58-59. The
Manager also stated that the Individual told her that he had no intention of going back to drug use
- 6 -
and was getting a lot of therapy and support. Tr. at 59. She stated that the Individual has not had
any issues at work because of drug or alcohol use, and she never saw him appear to be under the
influence of any drugs. Tr. at 53-54. The Manager further testified that the Individual seems to be
gaining confidence in himself, has been starting to challenge himself, and has learned to
communicate more openly with her. Tr. at 56-57.
The Psychiatrist, who has been a practicing since 1982, testified that he is board certified in
psychiatry and he has been the medical director of several substance abuse programs, including
18-month residential treatment programs, detoxification programs, and outpatient programs. Tr. at
21-23. He has been treating the Individual for approximately ten years. Tr. at 23, 46. The
Individual was a teenager when the Psychiatrist began treating him. Tr. at 23, 46. The Psychiatrist
opined that the Individual has several diagnoses: GAD, social anxiety disorder, several substance
abuse disorders, and a gambling disorder, each of which are in remission. Tr. at 24. The
Psychiatrist treats the Individual with monthly therapy sessions and medication checks. Tr. at 24.
He prescribes medication for the Individual’s anxiety disorders, and he prescribes Naltrexone
which blocks cravings and “reduces the high one gets from any kind of addiction…[s]o it works
for, not only substance abuse, but also gambling.” Tr. at 25-26, 39, 47.
The Psychiatrist stated that, for many years, the Individual was in a toxic environment where he
had access to drugs and substance abusing peers. Tr. at 35. He further testified that most of the
Individual’s substance abuse occurred during his teenage years, noting that “teenagers do not have
as much frontal lobe activity as we have as we get older…so [they] have much less impulse control
and they tend to have poor judgment.”4 Tr. at 35. The Psychiatrist testified that the Individual was
“in and out of rehab during his teenage years.” Tr. at 35. The Psychiatrist talked with him about
the things he learned from those programs and opined that the Individual “actually…did pretty
well in some of those rehabs.” Tr. at 35. The Psychiatrist explained that it required time for the
Individual to become sober from his addictions, but that is to be expected, because “it is rare that
somebody just gets into treatment and becomes sober, especially at his age and especially with his
genetic background and environmental background.” Tr. at 28. The Psychiatrist testified that the
Individual realized that if he continued his addictions, he would never be able to have the things
he wanted in life such as a good relationship, or a house. Tr. at 27-28. The Psychiatrist asserted
that it was significant that the Individual spontaneously understood the concept that addictions
cause problems because “the difference between a person who eventually responds to treatment
and somebody who does not respond, is that ability to see the long-term consequences of their
behavior, and not the short term.” Tr. at 27-28.
The Psychiatrist testified that he thinks the Individual’s anxiety disorder was one of the root causes
for his substance abuse and opined that the Individual’s anxiety disorder is moderate and is
responding to both the medication and to the therapy sessions in which they discuss anxiety-
producing situations. Tr. at 41-42. He further opined that the Individual is developing the skills
and knowledge to cope with his anxiety and to avoid substance abuse and gambling. Tr. at 42. The
Psychiatrist opined that the Individual will ultimately succeed in overcoming his social anxiety
4 The Psychiatrist testified that when the Individual first started using drugs as a teenager, he was often living with his
father, an alcoholic and heroin addict who introduced the Individual to alcohol. Tr. at 29, 34. The Individual was also
encouraged to consume alcohol and use drugs by his older sister and her friends who were drug dealers and drug users.
Tr. at 29, 34-35.
- 7 -
disorder: He has developed a more comfortable demeanor, feels more comfortable around people,
has developed more self-confidence, particularly as it relates to his job, and has been choosing
much healthier people to interact with. Tr. at 41-42.
The Psychiatrist testified that the Individual has replaced his former drug related activities and
gambling with more healthy behaviors. For example, when he was unemployed due to COVID, he
began attending school. Tr. at 44. He then transitioned into working full-time while simultaneously
attending school full-time. Tr. at 44. Subsequently, when he was able to stop going to school full-
time, the Individual used that time to engage in hobbies such as making sculptures, as well as
repairing and maintaining his cars and home. Tr. at 44. Moreover, he has put in extra effort at
work, so he has not had a lot of leisure time. Tr. at 44.
The Psychiatrist stated that he chose to continue to treat the Individual through all those years
because of his relative honesty, compared to most addicts that he had treated, and because some
of the Individual’s drug use resulted from the Individual’s self-medication of his anxiety. Tr. at
27, 29-30. Moreover, the Psychiatrist stated that the Individual was able to stop using heroin more
easily than most patients he has treated for heroin, and the fact that he made sufficient progress led
him to want to continue providing treatment for the Individual. Tr. at 30. The Psychiatrist described
the Individual as being “in the top five percent of [his] patients in terms of the ultimate outcome.”
Tr. at 28.
The Psychiatrist opined that the Individual will not return to drug use and drug related problems
with law enforcement, noting that at the time of his arrests, the Individual was an impulsive
teenager who failed to think of consequences. Tr. at 31. He asserted that even as a teenager, after
a few therapy sessions with the Psychiatrist, the Individual developed the insight to realize that he
no longer wanted to engage in drug use and to associate with drug users or dealers. Tr. at 32-33.
The Psychiatrist further noted that the Individual has exhibited integrity at his job, highly values
the work he is doing, and indicated that the Individual is motivated by his pride in his work and
appreciates that he has a well-paying job with a future. Tr. at 33-34.
The Psychiatrist testified that he believes the Individual last used illegal drugs over one year ago
when he used DMT. Tr. at 45. The Psychiatrist testified that the Individual’s reported his use of
DMT to him. Tr. at 45-46. He testified that having worked with the Individual for ten years, he
finds that the Individual is a more accurate historian than most people who use drugs and alcohol.
Tr. at 46. While the Individual has not always been an accurate historian, he has become more
accurate as he has grown older, as evidenced by the fact he disclosed his gambling to the
Psychiatrist rather than hiding it from him. Tr. at 46. He asserted his belief that the Individual’s
last illegal drug use of DMT resulted in significant adverse consequences which ultimately led to
the Individual learning and recognizing that if he wants to stay away from using addictive
substances, he needs to “stay away completely.” Tr. at 38. He noted that the Individual seems to
be able to use alcohol socially and occasionally without adverse consequences. Tr. at 39. The
Psychiatrist also testified that he recently administered a drug screen to the Individual, which was
completely negative. Tr. at 39, 48. He testified that the Individual has told him that he intends to
continue abstaining from illegal drug use for various reasons including his job, and because he has
seen the disastrous effects from his illegal drug use. Tr. at 36. He opined that the Individual’s
substance abuse disorders are in remission and specifically opined that the Individual’s SUD is in
- 8 -
full, sustained remission. Tr. at 41, 44-45. The Psychiatrist opined that the Individual’s prognosis
is excellent regarding abstinence from all illegal drugs. Tr. at 38.
The Individual testified that he started working at the DOE worksite in May 2021. Tr. at 84. He
stated that at that time, he knew that he would need to obtain an access authorization for his
position, and that he would need to avoid using any illegal drugs. Tr. at 84. He testified that the
Psychologist’s report was accurate, and that he understood why his past behaviors are a security
concern. Tr. at 65. The Individual testified that his last illegal drug use occurred in August 2021,
when he used DMT. Tr. at 67-68, 78. He stated that he had purchased the DMT in March 2021
for his ex-girlfriend but admitted that he subsequently researched the uses of DMT because he was
trying to find out whether the DMT would help decrease his anxiety. Tr. at 67. Ultimately, he
decided to use the DMT because he wanted to see what effect it would have on him. Tr. at 67. He
testified that he has learned from this mistake and acknowledged that “[he] knew that [he] would
have to come clean about it… ‘cause if [he] didn’t, [he would be] on that slippery slope again.”
Tr. at 69. He testified that he disclosed his DMT use to the Psychologist to “protect his own
integrity as well as to hold [himself] accountable for [his] own actions and to practice honesty.”
Tr. at 63. He stated that although he knows that he could have disclosed it sooner, he is proud that
disclosed his DMT use to the Psychologist because “it reinforced his integrity, self-respect, and it
maintains a crucial part in maintaining [his] sobriety.” Tr. at 63. He recognized that if he allowed
himself to get away with doing something illegal, he might believe that since he was able to
successfully get away with illegal drug use, he could do it again in the future just as easily. Tr. at
84. He asserted that he has also learned that he will never again choose to put himself in that
position because he recognizes the harm that will result afterward. Tr. at 69.
The Individual testified regarding the lessons he has learned from his prior outpatient treatment
programs. He testified that one of the significant lessons that he learned was how to manage
triggers and temptations regarding drug use. Tr. at 70. He explained that although he does not miss
using meth, whenever he has a trigger or sudden urge to do something that could be harmful to
himself, he learned that if he just waits a few seconds or longer, and if he distracts himself during
that time, that urge will go away. Tr. at 70. He also testified that his treatment programs taught
him to be open with other people because it holds him accountable. Tr. at 71. The Individual also
asserted that taking his medication as prescribed and complying with the treatment from his
Psychiatrist helps him tremendously in maintaining his sobriety. Tr. at 71. He explained that the
Naltrexone that he takes prevents him from experiencing the reward feeling that he used to get
when gambling. Tr. at 72. Through the course of his treatment, he has recognized additional
benefits that he has experienced from his sobriety such as an increase in his savings. Tr. at 72. He
stated that part of his motivation for making changes in his life regarding sobriety was that he
recognized that he was exhausted and had reached a point in his life where there was nothing
promising left for his future. Tr. at 72.
The Individual testified about the changes he has made to remain abstinent. He asserted that he
continues to work towards self-improvement. Tr. at 72-73. He provided examples such as his
smoking cessation, his ability to consume alcohol in moderation, and his ability to successfully
address his gambling problem. Tr. at 73. He also testified that he has relocated from the
communities in which he had engaged in illegal drug use and has completely disassociated from
the people that he had used illegal drugs with. Tr. at 73-74. He testified that his father passed away
- 9 -
in 2015 and that that his older sister who had previously provided him with drugs now lives a
significant distance from him. Tr. at 74. He stated that he loves her and sends her text messages to
see how she is doing, but he only sees her every month or so. Tr. at 74. The Individual asserted
that his sister no longer offers him drugs because she cares about him and respects him, and would
not try to sabotage him by offering him drugs. Tr. at 75. The Individual acknowledged that, by
contrast, his former friends would probably offer him drugs and lead him into harmful situations.
Tr. at 75. He asserted that for these reasons, he has intentionally stopped associating with his
former friends. Tr. at 75.
The Individual provided examples of activities that have replaced his substance abuse. Tr. at 69,
75-76. He distracts himself from cravings by spending time outdoors, enjoying nature, and
meditating. Tr. at 71. He asserted that he has replaced his dependency on drugs with a dependency
on activities that will lead to success, including avoiding idle time. Tr. at 69. As such, he spends
his leisure time working on his cars, and he is attending school to study engineering. Tr. at 75-76.
He also spends time engaging in hobbies such as throwing darts, playing pool, going on hikes with
his other sister who is also sober, attending social activities such as barbeques with his friends, and
working on his health and fitness. Tr. at 76.
The Individual asserted that he has been abstinent from drug use since August 2021. Tr. at 78. He
emphasized his commitment to abstinence in stating that he intends to stay sober “until the day I
die” and that he would sooner die than go back to drug use because it was the most depressing and
worst place that he has ever been in. Tr. at 77. The Individual asserted that he will be able to
maintain this sobriety, unlike in his past, because he now has so much to live for. Tr. at 80. He
testified that he recognizes that he now has the potential of a promising future and asserted that he
is not going to “mess it up.” Tr. at 63, 80. He testified that he believes that now that he is sober,
he feels great, and each day presents a new opportunity for him. Tr. at 86. The Individual also
asserted that since he has been sober, his confidence has greatly increased, and his social anxiety
has improved. Tr. at 86. He asserted that he now feels comfortable talking with his coworkers and
has chosen to disclose his history because he feels proud that he has overcome his past. Tr. at 86.
The Psychologist observed the testimony of the Individual and his witnesses before testifying at
the hearing. He testified that he had diagnosed the Individual with GAD, OUD, and CUD in
sustained remission, and SUD in early remission. Tr. at 90. At the time he prepared the Report,
he found that the Individual’s SUD was not in full remission since the Individual had used DMT
approximately seven months prior to the CI. Tr. at 90. He had also been concerned about the
Individual’s reasoning leading to his decision to use DMT, since that reasoning stemmed from “an
internal lack of cohesion with his sense of self” which resulted in the Individual’s being too easily
influenced by other people. Tr. at 90-91. The Psychologist opined that the Psychiatrist “is a very
excellent person to work with alcohol and other drug users…[h]e’s got good training and good
experience and probably [achieves] good results from that.” Tr. at 91. The Psychologist testified
that after listening to the hearing testimony, he was of the impression that the further that the
Individual has gotten away from drug use, the more he sees himself as having a future. Tr. at 92.
He further opined that the Individual now sees himself as being a different type of person: one who
will achieve several types of success including financial success and vocational success. Tr. at 92.
The Individual has formed a new self-image as “someone who is an ex-drug and alcohol user and
who is proudly achieving his new goals.” Tr. at 92. The Psychologist ultimately opined that he no
- 10 -
longer sees the Individual’s SUD as being in “early remission” and now considers his SUD to be
in “remission.” Tr. at 92. Finally, the Psychologist opined that the Individual “does not have a
condition right now that is apt to impair his judgment, reliability, civility, or trustworthiness.” Tr.
at 94.
V. ANALYSIS
The Individual has an extensive history of multi-substance abuse, addiction, and related criminal
activity. This history has been complicated by, and perhaps results from, his GAD, his youth,5 and
his former peers and several members of his family of origin who encouraged and enabled his
substance abuse. The Individual, however, has successfully addressed his substance abuse
disorders6 and his GAD through in-patient and out-patient treatment programs, individual
counseling, and medication therapy.7 This conclusion is supported by the testimony of the
Psychiatrist and the Psychologist who have both opined that the Individual’s OUD, CUD, and
SUD are now in full sustained remission. This conclusion is also supported by the Individual’s
credible testimony that he had abstained from substance abuse for over fourteen months at the time
of the hearing and intends to permanently abstain from further substance abuse. I note that I have
been particularly impressed by the Individual’s candor and credibility.8 Moreover, I was
impressed by the growth, integrity, and maturity exhibited by the Individual at the hearing. The
Individual has formed an identity based upon his newly formed self-image as a recovered
substance abuser, who is now proudly achieving his new goals as a responsible and functional
adult.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline H, at least one of which is present in the instant case. Specifically, Guideline H provides,
in relevant part, that conditions that could mitigate a security concern include:
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her drug involvement and substance misuse,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has established a
pattern of abstinence, including, but not limited to:
5 The Individual’s substance abuse and criminal activity mainly occurred during his teenage years and began to abate
as he entered his twenties. His hearing testimony, and that of the Psychiatrist, demonstrated that he has matured
greatly during the past several years. The Individual’s present maturity, as compared to his demonstrated immaturity
that he exhibited during his teenage years, is a factor supporting my conclusion that he has successfully mitigated the
derogatory information raised under Guideline H. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(d)(7) (an individual’s age and
maturity at the time of the conduct are among those factors that should be considered in the adjudication of the
individual’s access authorization).
6 While the Individual has also been diagnosed with OUD, CUD, and AUD, the Psychologist found that each of these
disorders were in sustained remission and that therefore the Individual had been reformed or rehabilitated from these
disorders. None of those disorders are cited as derogatory information the SSC, although behaviors resulting from
these disorders are cited as derogatory information in the SSC.
7 Moreover, he has successfully demonstrated, as testified to by the Psychologist, that he has developed a stronger
sense of self identity based on the foundations of self-respect, integrity, and accountability which are critical to his
long-term sobriety.
8 The Individual has exhibited remarkable openness and candor about his drug history.
- 11 -
(1) disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
(2) changing or avoiding the environment where drugs were used; and
(3) providing a signed statement of intent to abstain from all drug involvement
and substance misuse, acknowledging that any future involvement or misuse is
grounds for revocation of national security eligibility;
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 26(b).
In the present case, the Individual has clearly acknowledged his drug involvement and substance
misuse. The Individual has also provided evidence of the actions he has taken to overcome this
problem, which have included undergoing in-patient and out-patient treatment programs,
individual counseling, and medication therapy. Moreover, the Individual has made major life
changes to overcome his drug involvement including ending his associations with people who
encouraged his drug use and relocating away from those communities in which he was involved
in drug activity. Most importantly, he has shown that he had abstained from illegal drug activity
for over fourteen months at the time of the hearing, thereby establishing a pattern of abstinence.
Finally, the Individual repeatedly testified, under oath, that he intends to permanently abstain from
illegal drug use. For these reasons, I find that that Individual has shown that the mitigating
condition set forth at ¶ 26(b) is present in the instant case.9
I therefore find that the security concerns raised under Guideline H by the Individual’s SUD and
his drug involvement have been resolved by the evidence in the record showing that he has been
reformed and rehabilitated.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline H of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should be granted. This Decision may be appealed in accordance
with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and AppealsError! Reference source not found.
9 I have not addressed the mitigating factors at ¶ 26(a), (c), and (d) as they do not require consideration, in light of the
fact that the Individual has shown mitigation under ¶ 26(b).