PSH-22-0141

*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: September 30, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-22-0141
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 16, 2023
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Janet Fishman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be restored.
I. Background
A DOE Contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. In January 2022, the Individual was arrested and charged with Domestic Violence
after consuming “three beers, each of which was 16 to 22 ounces, in a six or seven-hour period.”
Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 1. The Local Security Office (LSO) subsequently issued a Letter of Interrogatory
(LOI) to the Individual, which sought additional information related to the Individual’s alcohol-
related arrest. Ex. 9. The Individual responded to the LOI in March 2022. Id. at 6.
In May 2022, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation by a DOE-consultant
Psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 10. During the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist conducted
a clinical interview of the Individual, reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file, including
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
reports of the Individual’s background investigations, and had the Individual undergo a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test2 to detect recent alcohol consumption. Id. at 2-3.
On May 31, 2022, the DOE Psychologist issued a report (Report) explaining the results of the
Individual’s evaluation. Id. In the Report, the DOE Psychologist wrote that at the time of his
January 2022 Domestic Violence arrest, the Individual consumed “about three beers,” ranging in
size from 16 to 24 ounces, and “maybe also a shot of vodka between noon and 10 PM.” Id. at 2-3.
The DOE Psychologist compared the Individual’s reported alcohol consumption to his height and
weight. Id. at 2. Based upon the Individual’s body composition, the DOE Psychologist opined that
on the day of the Individual’s Domestic Violence arrest, “he consumed the equivalent of
approximately 11 standard drinks.” Id. During his clinical interview, the Individual reported to the
DOE Psychologist that he typically consumes “one to two beers twice a week on non-working
days,” and the last time he consumed alcohol was “two days before the evaluation, when he had
two 20-ounce beers, one of which was 5% and the other 9% alcohol content.” Id. at 3-4. However,
the results of the Individual’s PEth test were positive at a level of 258 ng/mL, which was consistent
with “heavier alcohol consumption than [he] reported.” Id. at 5.
The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had an alcohol use disorder and that he “drinks
heavily and has a history of problematic use of alcohol.” Id. at 5. The DOE Psychologist also
opined that the Individual did not demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation. Id. The DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual “attain complete abstinence from alcohol,” “attend
Alcoholics Anonymous [(AA)] or Narcotics Anonymous [(NA)] meetings at least once a week,”
and “demonstrate that he can maintain control of his alcohol consumption by producing monthly
PEth tests or random urine alcohol tests showing negative findings for at least six and preferably
twelve months.” Id. at 5-6.
Due to the unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol consumption, the 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 a Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
In September 2022, the Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded
the Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA
appointed me as Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10
C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual testified on his own behalf. See Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-22-0141 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual did not submit any
exhibits. Counsel for the DOE submitted 15 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 15, and
presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
2 A PEth test measures the presence of PEth, a biomarker of alcohol use, in a person’s blood. Ex. 10 at 5. When used
to measure alcohol consumption, the test can detect “any significant alcohol use over the past three to four weeks.”
Id.
3
II. The Summary of 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 G (Alcohol Consumption)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. Guideline G states that 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.
Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline G include: “[a]lcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, child or spouse
abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the
individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder”;
“[h]abitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of
whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder”; and a “[d]iagnosis by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical DOE Psychologist,
psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c), and (d).
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the opinion of the DOE Psychologist that the Individual
has “an alcohol use disorder and/or does habitually or binge consume alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment.” Ex. 1 at 1. The LSO also relied upon the Individual’s history of alcohol-
related arrests:
1. In January 2022, the Individual was arrested and charged with Domestic Violence
after consuming “three beers, each of which was 16 to 22 ounces, in a six or seven-
hour period”;
2. In June 2012, the Individual was arrested and charged with Domestic Battery after
consuming “an unrecalled amount of vodka drinks and possibly wine prior to the
arrest”;
3. In February 2004, the Individual was arrested and charged with Battery on a Police
Officer/Emergency Personnel and Obstructing a Public Officer after he “admitted
that he was intoxicated after he consumed no more than 10 shots of liquor prior to
the arrest”;
4. In June 1993, the Individual was arrested and charged with Disturbing the Peace
after he “admitted that he consumed eight to nine drinks including beers and shots
of liquor over a four to six-hour period prior to the arrest” ;
5. In March 1991, the Individual was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication
and Underage Drinking after he admitted consuming “up to six beers in a four to
six-hour period prior to the arrest”; and
6. In November 1989, the Individual was arrested and charged with Underage
Alcohol Consumption.
4
Id. at 1-2. Based on the conduct noted above, I find the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline
G are justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
During a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) conducted by the LSO in 2012, the Individual
reported that he started consuming alcohol at about 12 years old. Ex. 14 at 7. Throughout high
school, the Individual’s drinking progressed from twice per month to “three to five times a month.”
Id. at 17-19. From 1989 to 1995, the Individual served in the military, during which time he
consumed alcohol more heavily. Id. at 24-25. The Individual also reported that, while in the
military, he would drink to intoxication “most nights” and would drink to the point of “blacking
out” a few times a year. Id. at 27-28. The Individual had several alcohol-related arrests during his
military service. Ex. 15 at 72-73. During an interview with an investigator with the Office of
Personnel Management (OPM), conducted in September 2018, the Individual disclosed he
“vaguely remembers” being charged with drinking while underage in 1989. Id. at 72-73. After his
arrest in 1989, the Individual took an alcohol awareness class, called “NANSAP.”3 Ex. 14 at 180.
In 1991, the Individual was arrested and charged with being drunk in public twice: in January and
March. Ex. 15 at 73.4 In 1993, the Individual was arrested and charged with Disturbing the Peace
3 During the hearing, the Individual was not able to recall the definition of the acronym “NANSAP.” He stated this
was a military “alcohol support program.” Tr. at 52.
4 The Individual’s January arrest and charge for being drunk in public was not cited by the LSO in its SSC. Ex. 1 at 1.
5
after consuming alcohol and “banging on the door” of a home he erroneously believed was that of
a friend. Ex. 13 at 171-173.
The Individual also disclosed in the 2012 PSI that, because of his alcohol-related arrests, he was
at risk of being “thrown out” of the military. Ex. 14 at 80-82. The Individual disclosed that while
he was in the Navy, he voluntarily entered a “Level III CAC” inpatient alcohol treatment program
(CAC Program)5 for six weeks,6 during which he attended group and individual counseling
sessions. Id. at 80-82, 84-85. During the CAC Program, the Individual was prescribed medication
“to help keep [him] from drinking.” Id. at 84-85. After the six-week CAC Program, the Individual
attended AA meetings, two or three times a week, for six months. Id. at 86-87, 91. The Individual
explained that he would stop drinking for a few months and then he would resume drinking, and
he stated this pattern continued throughout his military career. Id. at 37-38.
In December 1995, the Individual entered NA after becoming addicted to cocaine and crystal
methamphetamine.7 Id. at 59-60, 120-121, 136, 195. The Individual stated that he entered NA for
drug and alcohol treatment, participated in the program for eight or nine months, and attended
meetings two or three times a week. Id. at 198. The Individual disclosed he stopped attending NA
after eight or nine months because he got to a point where he stopped using methamphetamine and
the program “seemed counterproductive.” Id. at 201-202.
In March 2012, the Individual underwent a psychiatric evaluation by a DOE-consultant
psychiatrist (Psychiatrist) as part of a security clearance investigation. Ex. 17 at 2. In his report,
the Psychiatrist summarized the Individual’s history of alcohol consumption. Id. at 5-8. The
Psychiatrist wrote the Individual’s history included “alcohol-related arrests,” “unsuccessful efforts
to control his use,” “alcohol use that interfered with his responsibilities,” and “tolerance to
alcohol.” Id. The Psychiatrist also wrote the Individual participated in a “six-month in-house
rehabilitation program while in the military” and took medication for six months while in an after-
care program. Id. at 6, 8. The Psychiatrist’s report also indicated that during the evaluation, the
Individual reported drinking moderately, in social settings, and wanting to “live responsibly.” Id.
at 9-10.
Ultimately, the Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with a “History of Alcohol Dependence and
Alcohol Abuse, in sustained remission.”8 Ex. 17 at 9-10. The Psychiatrist concluded the Individual
showed “adequate evidence of reformation . . . in that he has used alcohol responsibly and in
moderation over the past five years.” Id. at 10. The Psychiatrist also concluded the Individual did
not require any “formal treatment for alcohol problems at the current time as his past condition is
in sustained complete remission.” Id.
5 During the hearing, the Individual could not recall the meaning of the acronym “CAC.” He stated it was an in-house
alcohol program provided by the military. Tr. at 48.
6 At the hearing, the Individual stated that the CAC Program was six months. Tr. at 48.
7 In his August 2022 QNSP, the Individual disclosed he illegally used controlled substances, including marijuana,
crystal meth, and cocaine, while working as an avionics tech for an airline. Ex. 13 at 32-33.
8 In making this diagnosis, the Psychiatrist relied upon the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American
Psychiatric Association, Fourth Edition. Ex. 17 at 2.
6
The Psychiatrist also found the Individual had not “used any illegal substances for over 6 years”
and diagnosed him with a “History of Illegal Poly-substance Dependence and Substance Abuse
(cocaine, methamphetamines or marijuana), in sustained remission.” Id. at 8-10. The Psychiatrist
concluded the Individual showed “adequate evidence of reformation” regarding his substance
abuse and did not require treatment. Id. at 10.
In his March 2022 LOI, the Individual reported that in January 2022, he was arrested for Domestic
Violence after he had an argument with his wife. Ex. 9 at 1. He explained that he consumed three
beers, ranging in size from 16 ounces to 22 ounces prior to the argument. Id. The Individual also
explained that in June 2012 he was arrested for Domestic Battery after consuming an unknown
amount of “vodka drinks after dinner.” Id. at 4.
In a second LOI in April 2022, the Individual reported that six times a month he would consume
two to three beers. Ex. 16 at 3. He also reported that two to three times a year he would consume
“vodka mixed drinks containing two and a half ounces of vodka per drink.” Id. He also reported
that he last consumed alcohol on April 3, 2022, “when he consumed 18 ounces of beer in about 2
hours.” Id. Lastly, the Individual reported that he did not believe he has a problem with alcohol
and did not need alcohol-related counseling or treatment. Id. at 5.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that on the date of the January 2022 domestic incident, he
was drinking craft beers ranging in size from 16 to 22 ounces. Tr. at 11. He stated he got into an
argument with his wife. Id. at 10. The Individual claimed the argument escalated to a point where
he and his wife were yelling at each other. Id. He asserted that his wife called the police, attempting
to defuse the situation, and he was arrested. Id. at 10-11. The Individual stated that, before his
arrest, he would drink beer “a couple times a week” and “two or three” times during weekends. Id.
at 12. He asserted that after his arrest, he continued to drink, but after meeting with the DOE
Psychologist, “things kind of calmed down in the house,” and he has only consumed two to three
beers, ranging in size from 16 to 22 ounces, since that time. Id. at 13-14, 17, 20-23. He further
stated that since receiving the letter indicating his security clearance was suspended, he has
consumed only one or two beers.9 Id. at 13-14, 17. The Individual claimed that every time he had
a beer, he felt like he was “doing something wrong.” Id. at 14.
The Individual testified that he disagreed with the DOE Psychologist’s conclusions about his
drinking habits because he “drink[s] responsibly.” Id. at 24-25, 27. He stated, “if I’m drinking and
I feel the effects, I discontinue drinking.” Id. at 27-28. He claimed, “basically, what [the DOE
Psychologist] recommended, is exactly what I did prior to being employed at the [DOE].” Id. at
26. He stated he enrolled in NA after his 2004 arrest for Battery of a Police Officer. Id. at 49-51.
He stated that on the day of the 2004 arrest, he had “ten shots of liquor,” got “severely drunk,” and
the incident “made [him] question . . . what [he] was doing.” Id. He asserted that he participated
in NA classes for eight or nine months and stopped drinking alcohol before becoming employed
9 When asked about a change in his drinking habits after his arrest, the Individual responded, “[T]he arrest really
didn’t, I mean, we didn’t – there wasn’t a whole lot of . . . purchasing or anything, . . . of beer after that. It wasn’t that
we weren’t drinking, but with the mood in the house, we just – we didn’t buy any.” Tr. at 13. In my opinion, the
Individual equated purchasing alcohol with consuming alcohol.
7
with the DOE. Id. He maintained that since his participation in NA, he has shown “a great deal”
of rehabilitation from his prior drinking habits. Id.
As to his PEth test results, the Individual testified that he did not dispute the results of the test. Tr.
at 31. He stated the PEth test “measures alcohol consumption and not intoxication” and he no
longer drinks to intoxication. Id. at 29-31. He also stated that since April 2022, he has consumed
“three to five” beers. Id. at 32-33.
As to the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations, the Individual specified that he did not
follow the recommendation to completely abstain from alcohol. Id. at 34-35. He stated he did not
attend AA or NA meetings because he “didn’t care for what [he] saw in the rooms” and he “didn’t
like the mentality that was in the rooms.” Id. at 35-36. He claimed that he was no longer drinking
to intoxication and “didn’t feel that those rooms were necessary for where [he is in his] life right
now.” Id. at 37-38. He said he talks to a counselor with an Employee Assistance Program “once
or twice a month” about the issues related to his security clearance. Id. at 35-36.
As to the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation that he undergo random PEth testing for at least
six months, the Individual stated he did not attempt to obtain a PEth test until January 2023. Id. at
43. But even then, he did not actually obtain a test because, according to his testimony, he believed
he needed an order from a court or a doctor to have his blood drawn. Id. at 43. The Individual also
claimed that he was deterred from obtaining a PEth test by the high cost; although, he also stated
he did not know how much a PEth test costs. Id. at 43-44. He stated that he was going to get the
PEth test “after the holidays to show that even through the holidays, you know, I hadn’t been
drinking.” Id. at 43. The Individual asserted that, “it didn’t seem like the recommendation that [the
DOE Psychologist] was giving was a be all end all, this is what you will do or you’re going to lose
your clearance . . . I didn’t believe that, you know, I was required to follow that[.]” Id. at 43-44.
The Individual testified that in the future, if he does drink, he will not drink to intoxication or get
drunk. Id. at 45. He stated that when he drinks, he does not drink to a point where he gets drunk
and makes poor decisions. Id. at 46. The Individual also stated the treatment he received before
joining the DOE gave him the ability to make rational decisions. Id. He concluded that he is an
older man now and there is no way he could drink the way he did in the past. Id. at 46-47.
The DOE Psychologist testified that she was unable to determine “whether [the Individual] still
has a problematic drinking pattern” because she did not see “independent proof” of the Individual’s
alcohol consumption. Id. at 55-56. She stated that the Individual’s lack of proof was a concern for
her because the results of the Individual’s PEth test in May 2022 indicated he was drinking more
than he reported during his evaluation. Id. at 56. The DOE Psychologist continued that the
“inconsistency or discrepancy between [the] past report of how much he was drinking and how
much an independent blood test showed that he was drinking, makes him less credible of a reporter,
independently.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist also testified that she believed the Individual did not follow her treatment
recommendations because he did not think he had a drinking problem, did not think he needed to
get any help to change his behavior, and “didn’t need to prove that through independent laboratory
results.” Id. at 57. She also stated that there is “an element of, perhaps, denial” related to the
8
Individual’s refusal to re-enroll in NA or AA. Id. She stated the Individual’s history of heavy
alcohol use indicates he could relapse into that level of drinking again. Id. at 60.
The DOE Psychologist asserted that under the Individual’s standard, if he is not blacking out, he
does not have a drinking problem. Id. at 61. She explained that a person’s judgment becomes
impaired before they recognize they are drunk. Id. The DOE Psychologist said, “[p]art of the, kind
of, paradox of alcohol intoxication . . . . is that one is less aware of oneself, and so one’s judgment
about whether or not one is intoxicated is impaired.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist also testified that she did not have any predictions about what the
Individual’s alcohol consumption would look like in the future. Id. at 64. She stated it is possible
the Individual’s history of drinking heavily, followed by an encounter with the police, and then
abstinence, will continue to repeat itself. Id. at 64-65. She also stated it is possible the Individual’s
experience leading up to the hearing will be “a real wake-up call” and he will not drink regularly
or heavily again. Id. at 65.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G:
(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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
Regarding factor (a) above, although there was a ten-year period between the two most recent of
the Individual’s arrests, both of which involved domestic violence or battery, they occurred with
enough frequency to raise security concerns. The Individual’s behavior is not infrequent enough
to mitigate the concern under this factor. Further, the most recent domestic violence arrest occurred
only a year prior to the hearing. There is no evidence to support that the alcohol-related arrests
occurred under unique or unusual circumstances. The Individual also has a history of participating
in treatment, exiting the treatment program, and resuming alcohol consumption. The Individual
9
admits he did not follow the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation to abstain from alcohol and
attend NA or AA once per week. Therefore, I find the Individual has not shown that his behavior
is unlikely to recur, and he has not mitigated the security concerns under factor 23(a).
Regarding factor (b), the Individual acknowledges his pattern of alcohol consumption, but does
not believe his alcohol consumption is a problem. The Individual asserts he can control his alcohol
consumption without the use of a treatment program because he no longer drinks “to get drunk.”
In addition, while the Individual believes he has progressed from his prior drinking habits, during
which he would drink until he blacked out, the Individual’s last treatment program was decades
before this most recent alcohol-related arrest and the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis. There is no
evidence the Individual’s efforts to control his alcohol consumption have been successful since his
prior enrollment in NA and AA.
Although the Individual claimed he has modified his alcohol consumption since his January 2022
arrest, the results of his May 2022 PEth test suggested his alcohol consumption was heavier than
the three to five beers he claimed to have consumed since April 2022. Therefore, his self-reporting
of his alcohol consumption is unreliable. In addition, the Individual has a history of participating
in alcohol treatment and relapsing upon exiting the program.
Furthermore, the Individual has not attended any AA or NA meetings since his 2022 arrest, as he
stated he did not feel he would gain anything from participating in those programs. There is no
evidence the Individual took steps to find, and enroll in, a treatment program he thought he would
benefit from. Lastly, as he has not undergone any PEth testing, there is no laboratory evidence to
support that the Individual has abstained from, or lowered his consumption of, alcohol. Without
evidence of his participation in an alcohol treatment program or the results of any PEth testing,
there is no reliable evidence that the Individual modified his alcohol consumption in accordance
with the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations. The Individual also did not present any
corroborating testimony from family or friends that he has reduced his alcohol consumption.
Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under factor 23(b).
Regarding factor (c), as discussed above, the Individual did not follow the DOE Psychologist’s
recommendations to participate in AA or NA and the Individual also did not undergo six months
of PEth testing. The Individual has a history of participating in alcohol treatment programs: an
alcohol support program, a six-month inpatient alcohol treatment program,10 six months of AA
meetings, eight to nine months of NA meetings, and another eight to nine months of NA meetings
a decade later. Following all those programs, he began consuming alcohol again, showing that he
has a history of entering treatment programs and then reengaging in alcohol consumption and
related conduct that results in his arrest. There is also no evidence the Individual successfully
completed these programs, and his alcohol-related arrests since leaving those programs shows he
has been unable to abstain from concerning alcohol consumption without the use of a treatment
program. Therefore, the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under factor 23(c).
10 As stated in footnote 5 above, at the PSI, the Individual stated that the CAC Program was six weeks. Ex. 14 at 80.
At the hearing, the Individual stated that the CAC Program was six months. Tr. at 48.
10
Regarding factor (d), as discussed above, the Individual did not participate in AA or NA, as
recommended by the DOE Psychologist, and he failed to undergo the recommended six months of
PEth testing. This is sufficient to preclude the application of factor (d). Therefore, the Individual
has not mitigated the security concerns under factor 23(d).
For the reasons stated above, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns
raised by the LSO under Guideline G.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter. Accordingly, I find the Individual
has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense
and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s
access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Janet R. H. Fishman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals