PSH-23-0002

*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: October 4, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0002
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 2, 2023
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
Richard A. Cronin, Jr., 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 security
clearance should not be restored.
I. Background
A DOE Contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. On January 18, 2022, the Individual reported to the Local Security Office (LSO)
that he had been arrested on the previous day for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) (2nd Offense),
among other charges. Exhibit (Ex.) 6. Subsequently, the LSO sent the Individual a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI) asking the Individual to provide further details surrounding his arrest. Ex. 9.
In his response to the LOI, the Individual stated that he had consumed approximately four beers
and a shot of liquor between 5:00 p.m. and 12:00 a.m. and had waited a sufficient length of time
such that the alcohol in his system would be metabolized. Ex. 9 at 1. At the bar, where he consumed
the described alcohol, he agreed to drive an alcohol impaired woman to her home a short distance
away. Ex. 9 at 1. He was then pulled over by local police and was scared because he believed that
he was the subject of harassment. Ex. 9 at 4. The Individual asserted that he did “pretty good” on
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 -
a field sobriety test administered by the police officer. Ex. 9 at 4; Ex. 10 at 3; He was then asked
to take a breathalyzer test to which he refused and was subsequently arrested. Ex. 9 at 1.
As a result of the information contained in the Individual’s response to the LOI, the Individual was
instructed to undergo a psychological evaluation conducted by a DOE consultant Psychologist
(DOE Psychologist) in May 2022. Ex. 8. In his May 19, 2022, report (Report), the DOE
Psychologist found that the Individual would regularly consume five alcoholic drinks at a time and
opined that the Individual met the criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder as defined in
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5th Edition.2 Ex. 10 at 5.
Due to unresolved security concerns regarding the Individual’s alcohol consumption and a prior
history of criminal arrests, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing
a letter (Notification Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him 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 letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and
J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter informed the
Individual 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 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 review
hearing. The Individual submitted four exhibits (Exs. A through D) into the record and presented
the testimony of four witnesses, including his own testimony. The DOE Counsel submitted 13
numbered exhibits (Exs. 1 through 13) into the record and presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist at the hearing.
II. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance
and informed the Individual that his security clearance had been suspended. Ex. 1. That
information pertains to Guidelines G and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. Under Guideline
G, “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the
failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and
trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. With respect to Guideline G, the LSO alleged
that the DOE Psychologist, in his Report, determined that the Individual suffers from Alcohol Use
Disorder, without evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The LSO also referenced the
Individual’s 2022 DUI arrest and a March 2016 DUI arrest. Ex. 8 at 2. Given the Individual’s
2 During his interview with the Individual, the DOE Psychologist requested that the Individual take a blood test for
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth), a biological marker for alcohol use. Ex. 10 at 9-10. The results of the test, 110 ng/mL,
indicated that the Individual approximately consumed more than four alcoholic drinks per day. Ex. 10 at 10. This
contrasted with Individual’s claim during the interview that in a month’s period he would consume typically four
beers and one mixed drink. Ex. 10 at 4, 10.
- 3 -
recent DUI arrests and the DOE Psychologist Report, I find that the LSO was justified in invoking
Guideline G.
Guideline J of the Adjudicatory Guidelines notes that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a
person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 30. The Local Security Office noted the Individual’s history of criminal arrests
detailed below:
Date Charge
January 2022 DUI
Incapable of Safely Operating,
Driving on Roadways Laned for
Traffic and Motor Vehicle Head
Lamps
March 2016 DUI
July 2011 Domestic Battery
September 2003 Misdemeanor Theft
May 2003 Felony Robbery
Ex. 1 at 2; Ex. 8; Ex. 3 at 6-7; Ex. 13 at 13.
Considering the Individual’s arrest record detailed above, the LSO had sufficient grounds to
invoke Guideline J in this case.
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
- 4 -
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. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
The incident leading to the suspension of the Individual’s clearance is detailed in Section II of this
decision. In his response to the LOI, the Individual reported that prior to his 2022 DUI arrest he
had consumed four beers and one shot of liquor over a seven-hour period but that typically he
would consume alcohol twice a month and on special occasions. Ex. 9 at 4.
The Individual was referred for an examination by the DOE Psychologist. Ex. 10. After
interviewing the Individual and reviewing the Individual’s PEth test results, the DOE Psychologist
found that the Individual suffered from Alcohol Use Disorder. Ex. 10 at 4. In making this finding,
the DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual would consume five alcoholic drinks at a time and
that the Individual had demonstrated alcohol-impaired judgment and decision-making abilities.
Ex. 10 at 4. Further, the Individual’s PEth test results indicated a level of alcohol consumption
greater than the Individual previously reported. See infra at n.2. He also found that the Individual
was also “binge drinking” alcohol and such behavior was a harmful risk behavior associated with
multiple diseases including substance abuse disorder. Ex. 10 at 4. The DOE Psychologist further
opined in his Report that for the Individual to demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation the Individual should: (1) stop consuming alcohol; (2) participate in substance abuse
treatment with a provider specifically trained in substance abuse treatment; (3) participate in
weekly group therapy sessions for 24 weeks; (4) participate in a monthly maintenance or relapse
prevention group therapy for “the remainder of one year”; and (5) attend a weekly support group
such as Alcohol Anonymous or Rational Recovery weekly for a period of six months. Ex. 10 at 5.
At the hearing, a friend (Friend) of the Individual testified that the last time he had observed the
Individual consume alcohol was around Christmas 2022 while shooting pool. Tr. at 13-14. The
Friend also testified that on occasion he had seen the Individual alcohol-impaired to the extent that
the Individual was not “shooting [pool] as great.” Tr. at 16. The friend testified that the Individual’s
alcohol consumption increased in the spring and summer 2022, and the Individual was going
through a difficult time with his then-girlfriend. Tr. at 21. He also testified that the Individual,
regarding consuming alcohol, stated to him “I’ve got to do something different.” Tr. at 17. He also
testified that beginning in the fall of 2022, the Individual has been working out at the gym more
often and participating in playing baseball. Tr. at 18, 21. Since the fall of 2022, when they go to
shoot pool, the Friend does not see the Individual consume as many beers. Tr. at 20. The Friend
highly commended the Individual’s judgment and reliability. Tr. at 24.
The Individual’s personal fitness trainer (Trainer) testified that she has interacted with the
Individual on almost a daily basis. Tr. at 29. She noted that during the first part of 2022 when
coming to the fitness center, the Individual would “be dragging” and she speculated that he may
have been feeling the effects of a “hangover.” Tr. at 31. She also testified that his increased
consumption of alcohol was related to some “personal hardship” the Individual was experiencing.
- 5 -
Tr. at 35. However, during late summer the Individual talked less to her about going out and
drinking and had increased his visits to the fitness center. Tr. 32. He also asked her to create a
fitness plan, and while talking to him about the plan, the Trainer found that the Individual was
making “positive changes” with his health habits. Tr. at 32-33. She also noticed more recently that
when she asked the Individual about social activities, he would often answer that he just “hung out
at home.” Tr. at 33.
The Individual’s mother (Mother) testified that during the first half of 2022, the Individual was
living with her. Tr. at 44. She was concerned about the Individual’s alcohol consumption when he
was arrested in 2022. Tr. at 41-42. However, the Individual’s Mother also testified that she thought
the Individual did not “overindulge” in his alcohol consumption. Tr. at 42. As to the Individual’s
2022 DUI arrest, she believed that the Individual had been subject to racial profiling because, after
leaving the bar, the Individual had not done anything to justify a traffic stop. Tr. at 43. She
confirmed that her son’s alcohol consumption has decreased. Tr. at 45.
The Individual’s mother testified as to her belief that the Individual’s past criminal arrests did not
reflect a problem with the Individual obeying the law. Tr. 45-46. As for the May 2003 felony
robbery charge, the Individual became involved with people who “came up with a bad decision
and included [the Individual] in that part.” Tr. at 47. She asserted that the charges associated with
this incident were dropped. Tr. at 47. The Individual’s September 2003 Misdemeanor Theft arrest
was due to a bad decision that the Individual made while a youth to steal a package of T-shirts. Tr.
at 47-48; Ex. 2 at 1. Regarding the July 2011 Domestic Battery charge, the Mother testified that
the Individual struggled to take his then-girlfriend away from a situation at a party that might have
resulted in a physical confrontation. Tr. at 55. Other attendees at the event, however, informed
police that the Individual had been involved in a physical struggle with his then-girlfriend. Tr. at
55.
The Individual’s Mother testified that the Individual was a loving single parent who is raising two
teenagers who themselves have not been in trouble. Tr. at 48. She also believes that the counselling
the Individual has received along with the Individual’s realization that his prior conduct was not
good for him has motivated the Individual to change his behavior and reduce his alcohol
consumption. Tr. at 49-50. Regarding the Individual’s current alcohol consumption, she testified
that the Individual occasionally consumed a beer at family events. Tr. at 51.
The Individual testified regarding his 2022 DUI arrest. Tr. at 71. While he was consuming beers
at a bar on the date of the incident, he deliberately spaced the drinks out based upon the alcohol
metabolism rate he had learned as part of a court-mandated program pursuant to his 2016 DUI
arrest. Tr. at 71. He agreed to drive his friend home because he believed he was not alcohol
impaired based upon his calculation of the metabolism of alcohol in his system. Tr. at 71. When
he was pulled over by police, he believed had had done nothing to support being pulled over. Tr.
at 71. Notwithstanding his prior claims that he did well on the field sobriety test, he testified that
he may have done poorly on the field sobriety test because he was tired and was recovering from
COVID, and he became concerned because he was driving with a Caucasian woman and “the cop
was going to have a problem with that.” Tr. at 72; compare Ex. 9 at 1 (Individual’s LOI response
asserting that he “did pretty good” on field sobriety test). Because he thought that the police stop
was not for a legitimate purpose, he refused to take the breathalyzer test. Tr. at 72.
- 6 -
The Individual testified that his increased consumption of alcohol in the first half of 2022 was
triggered by a breakup with his then-girlfriend. Tr. at 97. He was very affected by this event for a
long time and the situation was aggravated by the fact that his then-girlfriend took many of his and
his children’s belongings. Tr. at 97. As a result, he had to replace many items. Tr. at 98.
The Individual testified that he read the DOE Psychologist’s Report and his recommendations for
the Individual to follow to demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation from his Alcohol Use
Disorder. Tr. at 62-63. Around the time he was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist, the Individual
realized that he was drinking excessively and that he agreed with the DOE Psychologist’s
assessment. Tr. at 77-78. Consequently, he reduced his alcohol consumption and resolved to not
consume alcohol when he must drive. Tr. at 78, 88. His future intention is to maintain his current
reduced alcohol consumption. Tr. at 78, 87. However, if DOE required him to cease alcohol
consumption he would do so. Tr. at 79. The Individual believes that he had a problem with alcohol,
but he does not now have a problem with alcohol. Tr. at 91.
The Individual is also currently undergoing individual counselling. Tr. at 79. In his sessions with
the therapist, the Individual learned about the standard for binge drinking and that he tended to use
alcohol to deal with issues in his life. Tr. at 80-81. His therapy sessions do not just deal with his
alcohol use but with other issues in his life. Tr. at 84. The Individual testified that his therapist did
not believe that “alcohol is [the Individual’s] demon.” Tr. at 84-85. Specifically, he testified that
his therapist believed that his excessive alcohol use “was situational” since the Individual was
dealing with a significant amount of stress regarding the breakup with his then-girlfriend and
having his property taken by her and the potential loss of his security clearance. Tr. at 86. He
learned that he could use techniques such as working out and communicating with his loved ones
to cope with problems and issues. Tr. at 81. He was unable to begin the services of his therapist
until November 2022 due to problems with his insurance carrier. Tr. at 82. As of the date of the
hearing, the Individual has not engaged in any type of group therapy or Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) group. Tr. at 79-80, 86.
As for his criminal record, the Individual testified that regarding his two theft offenses in 2003, he
was younger and socialized with people who would get into trouble. Tr. at 89. As for the felony
robbery charge, the Individual asserted that he was not involved in the crime. Tr. at 89.
Additionally, the Individual testified that for the past 19 years he no longer has any involvement
with the individuals associated with either of the arrests. Tr. at 89. About the Domestic Battery
charge, he is not in a romantic relationship with his then-girlfriend although they have a child
together. Tr. at 89. He does not associate with her since he believes she is an obstacle to his goals
in life. Tr. at 89-90.
The Individual’s therapist did not provide testimony at the hearing. The Individual introduced a
letter from his therapist that indicated that she had met with the Individual on nine occasions and
stated her belief that only one more session would be needed to complete treatment. Ex. C.
Specifically, she stated “[s]essions have included treatment regarding anxiety, relationship issues
and substance-abuse information.” Ex. C.
- 7 -
The DOE Psychologist, after having an opportunity to listen to the witnesses and ask any questions
he thought appropriate, testified as to his current assessment of the Individual. Tr. at 104. The DOE
Psychologist testified that despite the Individual’s testimony and documentary evidence presented
at the hearing he believes that the treatment recommendations he made in this Report are still valid
and that the Individual has not complied with the recommendations. Tr. at 106. Significantly, the
Individual does not fully recognize the role his alcohol misuse has played in his life. Tr. at 106.
The DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual’s alcohol problem has been apparent since his
2016 DUI but that the Individual has not receive treatment. Tr. at 108. Instead, the Individual only
underwent court-ordered alcohol education pursuant to that arrest. Tr. at 108. Regarding the
Individual’s pattern of reduced consumption of alcohol, the DOE Psychologist opined that the
option of “controlled drinking” as a matter of treating alcohol use disorders is unsupported by
current professional literature. Tr. at 108. Further, in the opinion of the DOE Psychologist, the
Individual, despite his visits to his therapist, had not received adequate substance abuse treatment
at the time of the hearing. Tr. at 106.
V. Analysis
The adjudicative process is “an examination of a sufficient period and a careful weighing of a
number of variables of an individual’s life to make an affirmative determination that the individual
is an acceptable security risk. This is known as the whole-person concept.” Adjudicative
Guidelines, Appendix A at ¶ 2(a). “All available, reliable information about the person, past and
present, favorable and unfavorable, should be considered in reaching a national security eligibility
determination.” Id. “Each case must be judged on its own merits[.]” Id. at ¶ 2(b).
A. Guideline G
Specifically, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security
concerns under Guideline G if:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear
and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations;
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment
program; and
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
- 8 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
After considering the record in this case, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the Guideline
G concerns listed in the SSC. As an initial matter, the Individual has presented testimony to
challenge the allegation that he was alcohol impaired at the time of the 2022 DUI arrest.
Specifically, the Individual argues that he may have been the subject of racial harassment and the
record contains the Individual’s assertion in the LOI that he did well on the field sobriety test.
Nonetheless, there is substantial evidence supporting a finding that the Individual was alcohol
impaired when stopped for the 2022 DUI arrest, such as the fact he had been consuming alcohol
at a bar prior to getting into the car and his hearing testimony asserting that he, in fact, may have
failed the field sobriety test due to being ill with COVID. In this regard, I note that the Individual
failed to take a breathalyzer test that could have supported his claim that he was not alcohol
impaired. As such, I cannot find that the Individual’s evidence outweighs the other available
evidence as to his alcohol impairment at the time of the 2022 DUI arrest or that he was
inappropriately charged with DUI.
The Individual’s 2022 DUI arrest prevents any finding that the Individual’s alcohol misuse is
sufficiently distant in time to invoke the mitigating factor described in ¶ 23(a). Further, the
Individual has also been arrested in 2016 for DUI. Consequently, I cannot find that the Individual’s
conduct is infrequent for purposes of applying ¶ 23(a). Neither can I find that the DUI arrests
happened under unusual circumstances such to justify application of ¶ 23(a). Thus, the mitigating
factor described in ¶ 23(a) of the Adjudicatory Guidelines in inapplicable in this case.
The mitigating factor described in ¶ 23(b) is inapplicable since the Individual’s current limited
consumption of alcohol is relatively short in duration at approximately 6 months and is not in
accordance with the treatment advice from the DOE Psychologist that he abstain from alcohol. In
this regard, I note that the Individual has not participated in substance abuse treatment with a
provider specifically trained in substance abuse treatment. Nor has the Individual meaningfully
engaged in a recommended group therapy program such as AA. I also find it significant that, as
the DOE Psychologist testified, the Individual has not fully acknowledged the fact that he suffers
from an alcohol use disorder.
Further, I find that the mitigating factors described in ¶ 23(c) and (d) are inapplicable. As an initial
matter I do not find that the Individual’s engagement with his therapist to consist of a substance
abuse treatment program as described in ¶ 23(c) and (d). This is confirmed by the letter from his
therapist in which she states “[s]essions have included treatment regarding anxiety, relationship
issues and substance-abuse information.” This description does not reference substance abuse
treatment. Nor has the Individual fully engaged with a group therapy program such as AA. In
sum, I do not find the mitigating factors described in ¶ 23(c) and (d) to be relevant in this case.
For the reasons stated above, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the Guideline G
concerns raised in the SSC.
B. Guideline J
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide the following mitigating factors for information raising
Guideline J security concerns:
- 9 -
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person's life;
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance
with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
Upon my review of the evidence, I cannot find that any of these mitigating factors are applicable.
The Individual was arrested as recently as 2022, and I do not find that the criminal behavior
happened under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to reoccur under mitigating factor ¶
32(a). Further, even assuming arguendo that he was innocent of the 2003 felony robbery arrest,
there is no substantial evidence that the Individual was pressured or coerced in committing any of
the other offenses thus the mitigating factor described in ¶ 32(b) is inapplicable. Again, even if I
accept the Individual’s claim that he was innocent of the 2003 felony robbery charge, there is
sufficient evidence regarding the validity of the remaining charges, including the Individual’s and
his Mother’s own statements and testimony regarding the remaining charges, that I find that there
is evidence to conclude that he committed the remaining criminal conduct listed in the SSC.
Consequently, I find that the mitigating factor described in ¶ 32(c) is inapplicable. Lastly,
regarding mitigating factor described in ¶ 32(d), I note that the two theft charges and the Domestic
Battery charge were over 10 to 20 years ago and that alone such a time span might justify
mitigation. I find that the possibility of the Individual committing a theft or violent offense is low
given the passage of time since he committed this type of criminal offense. However, his two most
recent offenses involve DUI charges. Given my finding above under Guideline G, I cannot
discount the potential recurrence of future criminal alcohol-related conduct. In sum, I cannot find
that the Guideline J security concerns have been resolved.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and J 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 SSC. Accordingly, 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
- 10 -
security clearance should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Richard A. Cronin, Jr.
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals