PSH-23-0043

*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: January 11, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0043
)
__________________________________________)
Issued:
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for 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 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that
the Individual’s security clearance should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires that he hold a
security clearance. Derogatory information about the Individual was uncovered during the
investigation into his background. The Local Security Office (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 in order 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), the
Individual presented the testimony of four witnesses—two colleagues, his Alcohol Anonymous
(AA) sponsor, and one of his treatment providers—and testified on his own behalf. The LSO
presented the testimony of the DOE-consultant psychologist who had evaluated the Individual. See
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 -
Transcript of Hearing (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 14 exhibits, marked as
Exhibits 1 through 14 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted nine exhibits, marked
as Exhibits A through I.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE 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. That information pertains to the Bond Amendment, 50 U.S.C. § 3343(b), as well as
Guidelines G, H, and I of the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility
for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position, effective June 8,
2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not inflexible rules of law. Instead,
recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines are applied in conjunction with
the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
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 include:
(a) Alcohol-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;
(b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated
or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare and safety of others,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless
of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use
disorder;
(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations,
after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment,
or abstinence.
- 3 -
Id. at ¶ 22.
Guideline H states that:
non-prescription drugs, and the use of other substances that cause physical or
mental impairment or are used in a manner inconsistent with their intended purpose
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. Controlled substance means any “controlled
substance” as defined in 21 U.S.C. 802. Substance misuse is the generic term
adopted in this guideline to describe any of the behaviors listed [in this paragraph].
Id. at ¶ 24. Conditions that could raise a security concern include:
(a) Any substance misuse (see above definition);
(b) Testing positive for an illegal drug;
(c) Illegal possession of a controlled substance, including cultivation, processing,
manufacture, purchase, sale, or distribution; or possession of drug paraphernalia;
(d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of substance use
disorder;
(e) Failure to successfully complete a drug treatment program prescribed by a duly qualified
medical or mental health professional;
(f) Any illegal drug use while granted access to classified information or holding a sensitive
position; and
(g) Expressed intent to continue drug involvement and substance misuse, or failure to clearly
and convincingly commit to discontinue such misuse.
Id. at ¶ 25.
Guideline I states that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there
to be a concern under this guideline.” Id. at ¶ 27. Conditions that could raise a security concern
include:
- 4 -
(a) Behavior that casts doubt on an individual’s judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an emotional,
mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-
harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive, chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or
bizarre behaviors;
(b) An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a
condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness;
(c) Voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization;
(d) Failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed
psychological/psychiatric condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, including, but not limited to, failure to take prescribed medication or
failure to attend required counseling sessions; and
(e) Pathological gambling, the associated behaviors of which may include unsuccessful
attempts to stop gambling; gambling for increasingly higher stakes, usually in an attempt
to cover losses; concealing gambling losses; borrowing or stealing money to fund gambling
or pay gambling debts; and family conflict resulting from gambling.
Id. at ¶ 28.
The Bond Amendment prohibits heads of agencies from granting or renewing national security
eligibility for an individual who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or is an addict. 50
U.S.C. § 3343(b); see also DOE Order 472.2A, Personnel Security, Appendix C: Adjudicative
Considerations Related to Statutory Requirements and Departmental Requirements (June 10,
2022). An addict is defined as an “individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to
endanger the public morals, health, safety, or welfare; or is so far addicted to the use of narcotic
drugs as to have lost the power of self-control with reference to his addiction.” DOE Order 472.2A,
Personnel Security, Appendix C at C-1. Controlled substance is defined as any substance listed as
a controlled substance by 21 U.S.C. § 802. DOE Order 472.2A Attachment 8 at 8-2.
The LSO alleges that:
1. In August 2019, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While Under the
Influence (DWI);
2. In November 1978, the Individual was charged with Drunk in Public;
3. In September 2022, a DOE-consultant psychologist (the Psychologist) diagnosed the
Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild, and concluded that he has a mental condition
that can continue to produce instability and inadequately considered decisions; and
- 5 -
4. In February 2022, the Individual used 1.5 grams of cocaine.
Ex. 1 at 1–2. The LSO further alleges that the Individual is an addict or an unlawful user of a
controlled substance. Id. at 1. However, the Psychologist testified at the hearing outset, before
hearing any testimony, that he had incorrectly stated that the Individual had a mental condition
that impaired his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness and that his answer to the question asking
if the Individual had such a condition should have been “no” based on the Individual’s
psychological examination. Tr. at 19–20. I find that the LSO’s security concerns under Guidelines
G, H, and the Bond Amendment are justified. With regard to Guideline I, because the only
allegation supporting the invocation of Guideline I was the Psychologist’s conclusion regarding
the Individual’s mental condition, which the Psychologist corrected at the hearing, I find that the
LSO’s security concerns under Guideline I, while justified at the time of the Notification Letter,
are not supported by the current evidence and, therefore, are dismissed.
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 entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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. 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.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
- 6 -
The Individual was evaluated by the Psychologist prior to the LSO issuing the Notification Letter.
After the evaluation, the Psychologist prepared a report, which the Individual received in mid-
December 2022, concluding that the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use
Disorder, Mild, and listing recommendations to demonstrate rehabilitation. Id. at 7–8; Tr. at 86.
The Psychologist recommended that, in order to demonstrate rehabilitation, the Individual should
undergo nine months of blood testing to confirm his abstinence, remain abstinent for one year,
attend an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), see a substance abuse counselor, and meet with his
doctor about possible medication for anxiety. Ex. 11 at 7–8.
Witness 1 and the Individual had worked together off and on for almost 20 years, but did not work
together at the time of the hearing. Tr. at 22. They had not socialized outside of work during their
time working together but had stayed in touch throughout the years. Id. In recent months, Witness
1 had noticed the Individual displaying more positivity than he had previously and attributed that
to the Individual’s choice to abstain from alcohol. Id. at 23. He believed that the Individual was no
longer consuming alcohol, though he had not suspected in the past that the Individual had any
alcohol issues. Id. at 24. He had attended AA meetings that the Individual was at and had noticed
a change in the Individual as he worked through the program. Id. at 26–28. Witness 1 did not
regularly attend the meetings but had first seen the Individual at AA about 90 days prior to the
hearing and believed the Individual had started his sobriety around that time. Id. at 27. He also
believed that the Individual was intentional about his AA attendance. Id. at 28.
Witness 2 met the Individual at an AA meeting in December 2022. Tr. at 31. The Individual asked
him to be his sponsor at that time. Id. Witness 2 had been a sponsor for several other people who
worked at the DOE facility but had found it difficult because, in his experience, science-oriented
people never stopped asking “why me?” Id. at 32. However, Witness 2 had not heard that from the
Individual. Id. Instead, the Individual had dived into the AA program and thoughtfully evaluated
his attitudes and behaviors. Id. at 32–35. Witness 2 had more confidence in the Individual’s
recovery than in anyone else he had sponsored because the Individual was “doing the work, and
the work is hard.” Id. at 34–35. The Individual had told Witness 2 that he did not want to rely on,
depend on, or even think about alcohol in the future. Id. at 36. Witness 2 testified that AA attendees
typically do not talk about permanent sobriety, instead focusing on one day at a time, but he
believed the Individual’s commitment to his recovery was “aggressive.” Id. at 36–37. The
Individual was on the fourth step of the AA program, which is preparation of a moral inventory
identifying the harms done to oneself and others because of substance use. Id. at 32–33. Witness
2 had received spreadsheets from the Individual, which was much more work than he had seen
others put into a fourth-step inventory. Id. at 33. Witness 2 testified that the Individual had been
abstinent from alcohol since June 2022. Id. at 40.
Witness 3 was the Individual’s supervisor and had known him well since about September 2022,
though he had known him in passing for several years before that. Tr. at 45. They did not spend
time together outside work. Id. at 46. The Individual had been candid with Witness 3 about his
alcohol use. Id. at 46–47. Witness 3 trusted the Individual and praised the Individual for his
efficient, quality work product. Id. at 48–49.
- 7 -
Witness 4, the Individual’s counselor, provided group therapy to the Individual through an
Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP). Tr. at 57. The Individual had graduated from the IOP, a status
separate from completion which meant that he had met certain benchmarks in the program. Id. at
55–56. He had completed 36 of 48 sessions when his insurance stopped covering the IOP, so he
transitioned to the aftercare program to complete his remaining 12 sessions, even though the IOP
considered him to have graduated early. Id. at 56. The Individual was an active participant in the
IOP sessions and demonstrated introspection, consistent engagement, and willingness to confront
difficult issues. Id. at 57, 61, 64. He had told his counselor that he intended to abstain indefinitely.
Id. at 58. The Individual had explored his internal and external triggers, had learned to identify and
disrupt unhealthy cognitive patterns, and had formed a relapse prevention plan. Id. at 62–64.
Regarding the Individual’s drug use, she believed that he had only used cocaine once and stated
that, based on what she had heard from the Individual, she would be surprised if he used illicit
substances in the future. Id. at 70–71.
The Individual’s DWI occurred in August 2019 when he was celebrating having finished his
master’s degree program. Tr. at 79. He passed through a sobriety checkpoint after having “a couple
of beers” with his son at dinner and bourbon with a cigar after dinner. Id. at 79–80. The Individual
pleaded guilty and completed a first offender program, which involved one year of sobriety and
having an interlock device on his vehicle. Id. at 80. The Individual also took part in an Employee
Assistance Program (EAP) substance abuse program at the DOE facility. Id. He stopped attending
the EAP program when he stopped working at the DOE facility in November 2021. Id. at 81.
The Individual did not hold a clearance while not working at the DOE facility. Tr. at 77. In
February 2022, he was working in a high stress environment and a colleague asked him to come
have some drinks with him. Id. at 77–78. While they were drinking, the colleague offered him
cocaine, which he accepted. Id. at 78. The Individual had used cocaine when he was in high school
but had only used it the one time, in February 2022, in the decades since then. Id. at 78. The
Individual inhaled one line of powder cocaine and felt fidgety and uncomfortable. Id. at 79. He did
not enjoy the experience. Id. He did not intend to use cocaine again. Id. When the Individual was
hired by his current employer, the DOE Contractor, he was required to re-apply for his security
clearance and accurately reported his cocaine use on his Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP). Id. at 81.
The Individual began abstaining from alcohol on June 17, 2022, but did not feel like he was an
alcoholic before meeting with the Psychologist in September 2022. Tr. at 82, 99. He had struggled
with alcohol abuse in the past but had abstained from alcohol for 15 years after an ultimatum from
his then-wife. Id. at 82–83. Around 10 years ago, when his son reached high school, he wanted to
demonstrate moderation and began consuming alcohol again. Id. at 83. However, he was unable
to drink moderately, and his alcohol consumption became more problematic than it was before he
had started abstaining. Id.
- 8 -
The Individual first realized he had a serious problem with alcohol when he met with the
Psychologist and, as of the date of hearing, he considered himself to be an alcoholic. Tr. at 81–84.
He began attending AA and the IOP after receiving the Psychologist’s report, starting with an AA
meeting the day after receipt. Id. at 85–86; Ex. A. He submitted AA attendance sheets showing
daily attendance since that day. Ex. A He also increased his physical exercise to help stay sober.
Tr. at 94. The AA and IOP had been particularly helpful for the Individual because he had learned
about what thoughts and triggers led him to consume alcohol and how to cope with them. Id. at
90–92, 95–97. He started attending a morning AA meeting before work and decided to do “the 90
for 90,” which involves going to 90 meetings in 90 days. Id. at 86. After completing the 90 for 90,
the Individual continued to attend the meeting daily and had missed only two days since December
2022. Id. at 87. The Individual intended to continue attending five meetings per week in the future.
Id. at 90. He had completed his fourth-step inventory after examining his past and considering his
resentments, his fears, and the harm he had done to others. Id. at 88–89. He intended to continue
working the 12-Steps of the AA program and believed he would go through the 12-Steps more
than once in his life as he grew and changed. Id. at 89. He had discussed his progress in AA and
the IOP with his son and believed that both programs were helpful for mental health beyond just
substance abuse. Id. at 90–91.
The Individual intended to remain abstinent indefinitely and believed he had the tools to do so. Tr.
at 92–93. In addition to abstaining, the Individual had studied his underlying issues at the root of
his alcohol use—particularly his relationships with his father and stepmother—and had worked to
heal those issues. He intended to continue attending AA and understood that having even one drink
could lead to serious consequences for him. Id. at 85.
The Individual had formed a relapse prevention plan. Tr. at 96. When he experienced a trigger, he
would contact his primary support network: his sponsor, ex-wife, and son. Id. at 96–97. He would
also deploy tools he had learned, such as slowing down his thought process, as well as disrupting
negative thoughts and replacing them with positive ones. Id. at 97.
The Individual underwent monthly phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing, which can show whether
the subject has used alcohol within the preceding four weeks, starting in December 2022 after he
received the Psychologist’s report. Ex. B. He submitted results of five tests, all of which were
negative for the marker that would indicate alcohol use. Id. These results provide evidence of the
Individual’s abstinence from alcohol since at least late November 2022.
The Psychologist testified that, as of the date of the hearing, the Individual was reformed and
rehabilitated from his Alcohol Use Disorder and had a good prognosis for avoiding relapse. Tr. at
122, 125. The Psychologist found the Individual’s work with AA commendable and had noticed a
significant change in the Individual’s demeanor since the time of the psychological evaluation. Id.
at 122–23. For example, the Psychologist noted, the Individual was able to discuss difficult family
topics without experiencing physical distress, which he had not been able to do at his evaluation.
Id. The Psychologist explicitly stated that he believed the Individual had made real change in his
life. Id. at 124.
- 9 -
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
granting the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
Having applied the Adjudicative Guidelines’ mitigating factors to the evidence presented and
having considered such evidence in light of the whole person concept, I find that the Individual
has mitigated the concerns under Guidelines G and H and that the Bond Amendment is not
applicable in this case.
A. Bond Amendment
After considering all the relevant information, including the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I find that the Bond Amendment does not act as a bar to granting the
Individual a security clearance.
The Bond Amendment provides that federal agencies “may not grant or renew a security
clearance for a covered person who is an unlawful user of a controlled substance or an addict.”
50 U.S.C. § 3343(b); see also DOE Order 472.2A, Personnel Security, Appendix C:
Adjudicative Considerations Related to Statutory Requirements and Departmental
Requirements (June 10, 2022). DOE defines “an unlawful user of a controlled substance” and
an “addict” as follows:
a. An unlawful user of a controlled substance is any person who uses a controlled
substance and has lost the power of self-control with reference to the use of the
controlled substance or who is a current user of the controlled substance in a manner
other than as prescribed by a licensed physician. Such use if not limited to the use of
drugs on a particular day, or within a matter of days or weeks before, but rather that
- 10 -
the unlawful use occurred recently enough to indicate the individual is actively
engaged in such conduct.
b. An addict of a controlled substance is as defined in 21 U.S.C § 802(1), which is any
individual who habitually uses any narcotic drug so as to endanger the public morals,
health, safety, or welfare; or is so far addicted to the use of narcotic drugs as to have
lost the power of self-control with reference to his or her addiction.
DOE Order 472.2A, Appendix C-1 (citing the Bond Amendment).
The Individual is not an “unlawful user of a controlled substance” or an “addict”, as defined
by DOE. There is no allegation in the record that the Individual ever lost the power of self-
control while using cocaine or that he is currently an active user of cocaine or other controlled
substances. Further, there is no indication, nor does the LSO allege, that he habitually uses
cocaine or any other narcotic drug. The Individual self-reported on his QNSP that he used
cocaine on one occasion in 2022 and has stated that he has no plans to use cocaine in the
future. Therefore, since I find that the evidence before me establishes that the Individual is not
an unlawful user of a controlled substance, or an addict, the Bond Amendment is not
applicable in this case.
B. Guideline G
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline G security concerns include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment
program; or
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
The Individual has mitigated the Guideline G concerns here under mitigating factors (b) and (d).
Both factors require that the Individual “has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
- 11 -
modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.” As an initial
matter, I find that the Individual has complied with treatment recommendations. While the
Individual did not complete every treatment recommendation in the Psychologist’s report, the
recommendations were intended to list criteria that could demonstrate rehabilitation from the
Individual’s Alcohol Use Disorder. The Psychologist testified that the Individual had demonstrated
rehabilitation, the goal of the recommendations. I therefore find that the Psychologist’s
recommendations have been functionally, if not specifically, met.
Furthermore, I find that the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
abstinence. The Individual testified that he had abstained from alcohol for about 11 months by the
date of the hearing, submitted PEth test results confirming about six months of abstinence, and
submitted attendance sheets from AA. Ex. A. Additionally, the Psychologist testified that he
believes the Individual has made real changes in his life. I find that the Individual has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Regarding factor (b), in his hearing testimony the Individual acknowledged that his previous use
of alcohol was maladaptive and showed that he has taken appropriate steps to remedy that
maladaptive use, such as attending an IOP and AA, working with an AA sponsor, and finding new
ways to cope with old triggers. He has also provided laboratory proof that he has been abstinent
for at least six months. Further, the Individual provided testimony to show that he had graduated
from an IOP and was a regular participant in AA meetings in order to help him to maintain his
sobriety.
Regarding factor (d), the Individual graduated from his IOP. Furthermore, The Psychologist’s
testimony is evidence that the Individual is rehabilitated from his Alcohol Use Disorder and is now
in an ongoing maintenance phase of his recovery. I therefore find that he has successfully
completed a treatment program and any required aftercare.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Guideline G concerns are mitigated.
C. Guideline H
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline H security concerns include:
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or happened under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current
reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(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:
(1) Disassociation from drug-using associates and contacts;
- 12 -
(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;
(c) Abuse of prescription drugs was after a severe or prolonged illness during which these
drugs were prescribed, and abuse has since ended; and
(d) Satisfactory completion of a prescribed drug treatment program, including, but not limited
to, rehabilitation and aftercare requirements, without recurrence of abuse, and a favorable
prognosis by a duly qualified medical professional.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 26.
Mitigating factor (a) applies to the Guideline H concern. As discussed above, the Individual used
cocaine one time in adulthood, more than one year prior to the hearing date, and has credibly
testified that he does not intend to consume illegal drugs in the future. I therefore find that the
Individual is unlikely to use illegal drugs in the future. For the foregoing reasons, I find that the
Guideline H concerns are mitigated.
D. Guideline I
As stated above, the Guideline I concerns are dismissed because evidence presented at the hearing
shows that the concerns are not supported by the record.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guidelines G and H
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has succeeded in fully resolving
those concerns, and that the Bond Amendment does not act as a bar to granting the Individual a
security clearance. Therefore, I conclude that granting DOE access authorization to the Individual
“will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national
interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should grant access authorization
to the Individual.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals