PSH-23-0021

*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: November 8, 2022 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0021
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 9, 2023
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations
set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering
the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s
access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
On April 5, 2022, the Individual woke up with shakes after a night of heavy alcohol consumption.
Ex. 8 at 4. He reported this condition to his employer, a DOE contractor, who required that he
undergo a fitness for duty evaluation. Ex. 8 at 4. A psychologist employed by his employer’s
Occupational Medicine (OM) Department (the OM Psychologist), recommended that he attend an
impatient alcohol treatment program. Ex. 8 at 4–5. From April 14, 2022, to May 15, 2022, the
Individual attended an inpatient alcohol treatment program (ITP). Ex. 7 at 1; Ex. 8 at 5.
On June 9, 2022, a Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual, to which he responded on that same day. Ex. 7 at 1, 9. In this response the Individual
reported that he had ceased consuming alcohol, attended the ITP, began attending Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) two to six times a week, and had arranged to begin counseling with a local
mental health provider. Ex. 7 at 1. The Individual further reported that he had received alcohol
treatment in the past, after he had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol twice
in 1982. Ex. 7 at 2–3. The Individual reported that his last use of alcohol had occurred on April
1 Under the regulations, “[a]ccess authorization means an administrative determination that an individual is eligible
for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.5(a). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2
5, 2022. Ex. 7 at 6. The Individual stated: “I have proved to myself that I cannot use alcohol and
will continue AA/NA and abstinence of all mind altering substances.” Ex. 7 at 13.
Because of the security concerns raised by the alcohol treatment, the LSO requested that the
Individual undergo an evaluation by a DOE-contractor Psychologist (Psychologist), who
conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the Individual on June 20, 2022. Ex. 8 at 2. In addition to
interviewing the Individual, the Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file,
administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Third Edition (MMPI-3) to the
Individual, and had him undergo a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test to detect alcohol
consumption. Ex. 8 at 2. The Individual’s PEth test result was negative, indicating that he had not
used alcohol recently. Ex. 8 at 5. The Psychologist issued a report of his findings (the Report) on
July 24, 2022, in which he found that the Individual had met the criteria set forth in the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) for Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD), Severe, in early remission and that the Individual was neither reformed nor rehabilitated
since he had only been abstaining from alcohol use for three months. Ex. 8 at 7–8. The
Psychologist recommended that the Individual continue participating in AA for at least 18 months,
obtain an AA sponsor, abstain from alcohol use for six months, and undergo monthly PEth tests
for six months. Ex. 8 at 7–8.
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 the Individual, a fellow AA member, his AA sponsor (the Sponsor), and the
Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-23-0021 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The
DOE Counsel submitted 10 exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 10. The Individual submitted
seven exhibits marked as Exhibits A through G.
Exhibit A is the Individual’s response to the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) in which he
takes exception to several of the Psychologist’s statements in the Psychologist’s Report.
Exhibit B is a medical record issued documenting the Individual’s treatment at an urgent care
facility on February 7, 2022, for bronchitis. Ex. B at 1.
Exhibit C is a “Duty Disposition Letter” issued by the Human Reliability Program (HRP)
indicating that a HRP physician found the Individual to be fit for duty from February 14, 2022, to
February 14, 2023. Ex. C at 1.
Exhibit D is a series of sign-in sheets documenting the Individual’s frequent attendance of AA
meetings from September 7, 2022, to April 3, 2023.
Exhibit E is a letter dated March 24, 2023, from the Individual’s counselor to Whom It May
Concern, in which the Counselor states:
3
This letter is regarding [the Individual]. [The Individual] has been receiving
services . . . since July of 2022. [The Individual] continues to make good progress
in individual therapy in identifying underlying issues related to his drinking and
planning for long term sobriety. [The Individual] has also been attending AA
meetings regularly and continues to work with a sponsor.
Ex. E at 1.
Exhibit F is a letter from an employee of the ITP documenting that the Individual had attended
that program from April 15, 2022, to May 15, 2022, when he was “discharged with staff approval.”
Ex. F at 1.
Exhibit G is an email, dated April 18, 2023, from the OM Psychologist to the DOE Counsel. In
this letter, the OM Psychologist explained that the Individual was not regularly tested for alcohol
use by OM due to an error on the part of the OM. Ex. G at 1.
II. The SSC
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, citing the Psychologist’s finding that the Individual met the DSM-
5 criteria for AUD, Severe. This information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of
Guideline G. 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. Among those
conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern
is “diagnosis by a duly qualified . . . clinical psychologist . . . of alcohol use disorder.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 22(d).
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
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
4
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
To mitigate the security concerns raised by his AUD, Moderate, the Individual presented the
testimony of three witnesses, including himself, at the hearing to show that he was reformed and
rehabilitated.
A fellow AA member testified at the hearing that he has known the Individual for seven or eight
months, since they met at an AA meeting. Tr. at 15. He and the Individual have started a new AA
meeting in an underserved community. Tr. at 15–19. The Individual attends AA meetings three
or four times a week. Tr. at 16. The Individual regularly leads AA meetings. Tr. at 19–20. The
Individual has been sober for seven months. Tr. at 22. The Individual spoke about a relapse in an
AA meeting, but the witness did not remember when that occurred, just that it was “a ways back.”
Tr. at 24, 27–28. He and the Individual socialize frequently. Tr. at 26. He has never observed the
Individual consuming alcohol. Tr. at 26. The Individual takes his sobriety seriously. Tr. at 26.
The Sponsor testified at the hearing that he met the Individual through AA meetings. Tr. at 33.
He has been the Individual’s sponsor for approximately a year. Tr. at 34. The Individual attends
AA meetings at his group two to three times a month. Tr. at 34. The Individual attends meetings
at other groups as well. Tr. at 35. He and the Individual meet at least once a month in the sponsor-
sponsee capacity. Tr. at 36. He also talks to the Individual on the phone and they exchange texts
regularly. Tr. at 36. The Sponsor testified that “the Individual is definitely making progress in his
sobriety, but he is definitely in early sobriety . . ..” Tr. at 36–37. The Sponsor has sponsored a half
dozen people over the years. Tr. at 37. He described the Individual as “very participative” and
willing to share. Tr. at 37–38. The Individual is very open about his sobriety and the difficulties
of early sobriety. Tr. at 38. The Sponsor described the Individual as “one of the more successful
candidates in AA.” Tr. at 38. The Individual had one relapse in early September 2022. Tr. at 40.
The Individual learned a lot from that relapse. Tr. at 40. Relapse is common in early sobriety. Tr.
at 41. The fact that the Individual contacted him immediately after relapsing is an encouraging
sign of his interest in maintaining his sobriety. Tr. at 41–42. The Individual is engaged in the
Twelve-Step program. Tr. at 42. The Individual has shown growth and improvement in the
program. Tr. at 44. He is optimistic about the Individual’s recovery. Tr. at 45. The Individual
recently received his seven-month chip. Tr. at 46–47. His relapse occurred before the start of that
seven-month period. Tr. at 47.
The Individual testified that he stopped using alcohol in April 2022, when he realized that his
excessive alcohol use was making him physically ill and that he was in an unhealthy romantic
relationship. Tr. at 51–54. He had to call into work on April 5, 2022, and report that he was not
fit for duty due to alcohol induced “jitters.” Tr. at 56. They had him inform OM. Tr. at 56. OM
informed him he had to enroll in a 30-day inpatient treatment program. Tr. at 56. He complied
with this requirement by enrolling in the ITP. Tr. at 56–57. He did not use alcohol between April
5, 2022, and the ITP. Tr. at 58. He found the ITP to be helpful. Tr. at 62–63. He started attending
AA meetings right after he finished the ITP. Tr. at 64. He started a new AA group, in October
5
2022, because he wanted to be able to attend meetings closer to his home. Tr. at 66–67. He still
attends AA meetings in other communities. Tr. at 67. He intends to attend AA meetings for the
rest of his life. Tr. at 67. The Individual testified that he gets a lot from AA, not only does it help
him with alcohol, but in other areas of his life as well. Tr. at 68. He does not find abstaining from
alcohol use to be particularly difficult, because he does not experience cravings. Tr. at 68. He is
learning to find peace of mind without alcohol. Tr. at 68. He attends individual counseling monthly
at the suggestion of the OM Psychologist. Tr. at 68–70. The Individual testified that he relapsed
in September 2022, after he found out his clearance had been suspended, and his sobriety date is
now September 11, 2022. Tr. at 71–72, 75–76. He consumed two 16-once beers on September
10, 2022. Tr. at 73–74. The next day he called the Sponsor and informed him of his relapse. Tr.
at 74. The Individual testified that prior to his relapse, his last use of alcohol occurred on April 5,
2022. Tr. at 75. The Individual plans to permanently abstain from alcohol use. Tr. at 80. OM was
supposed to test him for alcohol use monthly but did not do so. Tr. at 82–83. He testified that his
AA group meetings, his daughter and son-in-law, and his friends from AA provide him with an
effective support network. Tr. at 87-89.
The Psychologist observed the testimony of the other witnesses before testifying at the hearing.
He testified that the Individual met the criteria set forth in the DSM-5 for AUD, Severe. Tr. at 97–
98. Because of his relapse, the Individual is now considered to be in partial remission or early
remission. Tr. at 98-99. He testified that the Individual handled his relapse well, having reached
out to the appropriate people. Tr. at 95. The Psychologist noted that it is important that the
Individual only relapsed once and did not go on “a really big binge.” Tr. at 95-96. The
Psychologist noted that the Individual, by notifying his sponsor immediately of his relapse, took
responsibility for his actions and showed he was “trying to do the correct thing.” Tr. at 96. The
Psychologist further testified that “the lapse seven months ago should remind all of us that he
remains vulnerable to relapsing and to the use of alcohol to deal with dysphoric affects, depression,
anger, upsets of various kind.” Tr. at 99. The Psychologist does not have any reason to believe
that the Individual has not abstained from alcohol use since September 2022. Tr. at 101. If not
for the two beers that he consumed on September 10, 2022, the Individual would be in sustained
remission. Tr. at 102. The Psychologist testified that, other than not getting PEth tested, the
Individual complied with his treatment recommendations. Tr. at 102. He testified that the
Individual’s prognosis is “very good.” Tr. at 102. The Psychologist was impressed by the
Individual’s candid testimony. Tr. at 103. He noted that the Individual “is incredibly invested in
the AA process . . ..” Tr. at 103.
V. Analysis
The Individual has shown himself to be deeply committed to his sobriety and highly motived to
achieve it. He has complied with the Psychologist’s treatment recommendations, although he did
not undergo the recommended PEth testing. He has attended and completed the ITP and has
become highly engaged in AA. In addition, the Individual has been receiving individual
counseling. Most importantly, he has been able to limit himself to consuming two sixteen-once
beers during the past thirteen months. At the time of the hearing, it had been over seven months
since he last consumed alcohol. Both the Psychologist and myself were impressed by the
Individual’s candor at the hearing and his willingness to hold himself accountable.
6
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G.
First, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G if “[t]he 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b). In the present case, the Individual has
acknowledged his AUD, has received treatment at the ITP, and has begun fully participating in
AA to address his AUD. His seven-month period of abstinence from alcohol use is sufficient to
establish a pattern of abstinence from alcohol in accordance with the Psychologist’s treatment
recommendation that he abstain from alcohol use for six months. Accordingly, I find that the
mitigating conditions set forth at ¶ 23(b) are present in the instant case.
Second, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline G if “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(d). As noted above, the Individual has successfully completed the ITP and is
highly engaged in AA. The Individual has abstained from all alcohol use since September 11,
2022, a seven-month period of abstinence that demonstrates a clear and established pattern of
abstinence in accordance with the Psychologist’s recommendations that he abstain from alcohol
for six months. Accordingly, I find that the mitigating conditions set forth at ¶ 23(d) are present
in the instant case.
I therefore find that the security concerns raised by the Individual’s AUD diagnosis under
Guideline G have been resolved.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G. After
considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner, I find
that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline G. Accordingly, the
Individual has demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common
defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, the Individual’s
security clearance should be restored. 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 Appeals