PSH-23-0049

*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 10, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0049
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 17, 2023
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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 June 16, 2022, the Individual’s employer administered a routine random breath alcohol test
(BAT) to her. Ex. 8 at 3. The Individual’s BAT was positive indicating that her blood alcohol
level (BAL) was .056. Ex. 8 at 3. A second BAT was administered to her approximately 16
minutes later, which indicated that her BAL was .051. Ex. 8 at 3.
On August 5, 2022, a Local Security Office (the “LSO”) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (the
“LOI”) to the Individual, to which she responded on August 8, 2022. Ex. 9 at 1, 6. In this response
the Individual reported that she had consumed approximately four ounces of vodka between 6:00
p.m. and 10:30 p.m. on June 15, 2022. Ex. 9 at 1. The Individual stated that her last consumption
of alcohol occurred the night before she submitted her response, on August 7, 2022, when she
consumed two ounces of vodka; nevertheless, the Individual also stated that she was abstaining
from alcohol use. Ex. 9 at 2–3, 5. The Individual stated: “I feel like I was in the beginning of an
unhealthy relationship with alcohol when my incident (Positive BAT, June 16, 2022) occurred.”
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.
CUI//PRVCY
- 2 -
Ex. 9 at 5. She reported that her primary care physician had expressed concern about her alcohol
consumption when tests indicated abnormalities in her liver enzymes in spring 2022. Ex. 9 at 5.
She noted that she had sought “professional help through the Employee Assistance Program” and
that she had been attending an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), which she hoped to complete
in October 2022. Ex. 9 at 5. She reported meeting with a “substance abuse evaluator” (the
Counselor) but had not received his report. Ex. 9 at 5.
Because of the security concerns raised by the Individual’s positive BAT and alcohol treatment,
the LSO requested that the Individual undergo an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist
(the “Psychologist”), who conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the Individual on October 4, 2022.
Ex. 10 at 1. In addition to interviewing the Individual, the Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s
personnel security file, administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Third
Edition to her, and had her undergo a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test to detect alcohol
consumption. Ex. 10 at 2. The Individual’s PEth test result was negative, indicating that she had
not used alcohol recently. Ex. 10 at 5. During the CI, the Individual reported that she last
consumed alcohol on August 7, 2022, the day before she began the IOP. Ex. 10 at 4. The
Psychologist noted that she had spoken with the Counselor who had conducted the substance abuse
evaluation of the Individual and oversaw the IOP. Ex. 10 at 4. The Counselor reported that he
had diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate. Ex. 10 at 4. The
Counselor indicated that the Individual was “excelling in the program” and that he considered the
Individual’s prognosis to be “positive.” Ex. 10 at 4. The Psychologist issued a report of her
findings (the “Report”) on October 12, 2022, in which she found that the Individual had met the
criteria set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (the
“DSM-5”) for AUD, Severe, in early remission and that the Individual was neither reformed nor
rehabilitated since she had only been abstaining from alcohol use for two months. Ex. 10 at 6.
The Psychologist recommended that the Individual should complete the IOP, attend aftercare for
nine months, abstain from alcohol use for nine months, and undergo monthly PEth tests for nine
months. Ex. 10 at 6–7.
After receiving the Report, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing
a Notification Letter to the Individual, accompanied by a Summary of Security Concerns (the
“SSC”), informing her that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve
the substantial doubt regarding her 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 and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-
23-0049 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The DOE Counsel submitted 12 exhibits marked as Exhibits
1 through 12. The Individual submitted 16 exhibits marked as Exhibits A through O.2
Exhibit A is a Certificate of Completion, dated October 19, 2022, indicating that the Individual
had successfully completed the IOP.
2 The Individual submitted two distinct and unrelated exhibits both of which she labeled as “Exhibit L.”
CUI//PRVCY
CUI//PRVCY
- 3 -
Exhibit B is a document, of uncertain authorship,3 dated December 14, 2022, indicating that the
Individual had been meeting regularly with a therapist to treat her anxiety, stress, and “addiction,”
since April 27, 2021; had attended the IOP daily from August 8, 2022, through October 10, 2022;
and had attended weekly aftercare meetings from October 17, 2022, through December 21, 2022.
Ex. B at 1–2.
Exhibit C is a notarized statement of intent, dated December 22, 2022, signed by the Individual
stating that she intends to abstain from alcohol use and attend counseling. Ex. C at 1.
Exhibit D is a laboratory report indicating that a PEth test administered to the Individual on
November 10, 2022, was negative.
Exhibit E is a laboratory report indicating that a PEth test administered to the Individual on
December 15, 2022, was negative.
Exhibit F consists of a series of character references from the Individual’s pastor, a co-worker, and
a friend attesting to her good character. Ex. F at 1–3. In addition, Exhibit F contains a letter from
a licensed clinical social worker, who provided several opinions outside of her range of expertise.
For example, she offered professional opinions that the Individual does not have AUD and that the
Individual’s medical conditions caused her to test positive for alcohol on June 16, 2022. Ex. F at
4.
Exhibit G is an “Award of Excellence” awarded to the Individual by the National Nuclear Security
Administration in July 2015.
Exhibit H consists of several of the Individual’s performance evaluations.
Exhibit I is a short auto-biographical statement prepared by the Individual.
Exhibit J is a photograph of the Individual.
Exhibit K consists of photographs of the Individual and her family.
The first Exhibit L submitted by the Individual is her resume.
The second Exhibit L submitted by the Individual is a laboratory report indicating that a PEth test
administered to the Individual on February 1, 2023, was negative.
Exhibit M is a laboratory report indicating that a PEth test administered to the Individual on March
24, 2023, was negative.
Exhibit N is an undated email from a coworker attesting to the Individual’s good character.
3 The first page of the document appears to be records kept by the Individual’s therapist, and the second, third, and
fourth pages of the document appear to be financial records generated by the organization that administered the IOP.
Ex. B at 3–4.
CUI//PRVCY
CUI//PRVCY
- 4 -
Exhibit O is a document entitled “Ledger Statement.” The document’s author is unknown. The
document indicates that the Individual attended, or was charged for, 25 aftercare meetings from
October 17, 2022, to April 17, 2023. Ex. O.
II. The SSC
The SSC informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning her 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, and the Individual’s positive BAT. 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 are “alcohol related incidents at work such as reporting for
work or duty in an . . . impaired condition. . . .” and “diagnosis by a duly qualified . . . clinical
psychologist . . . of alcohol use disorder.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(b) and (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
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
CUI//PRVCY
CUI//PRVCY
- 5 -
To mitigate the security concerns set forth in the SSC, the Individual testified at the hearing to
show that she was reformed and rehabilitated.
The Individual testified that, at the time of her positive BAT, she was consuming two to four drinks
daily. Tr. at 17–18. The Individual testified that she began treatment at the IOP in August 2022
and completed it in October 2022. Tr. at 18, 30. The IOP treatment lasted for eight weeks and
met daily from 6:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. Tr. at 18. She testified that she began attending aftercare
on a weekly basis after she completed the IOP. Tr. at 18. Aftercare is basically group counseling
for people suffering from addiction, usually alcohol. Tr. at 19. She continues to attend aftercare
and individual counseling. Tr. at 21. The IOP and aftercare helped the Individual recognize that
she “was struggling with alcohol and drinking in excess, and that [she] did need help.” Tr. at 20.
She is no longer ashamed to say she needs help. Tr. at 20. She testified that she has abstained
from using alcohol. Tr. at 21. She admitted that she used to use alcohol to cope with her stress
and anxiety “in an unhealthy way.” Tr. at 23–24. Through her treatment, she has learned more
effective techniques to address her stress and anxiety. Tr. at 23–25. She now understands that her
alcohol use was contributing to her stress and that discontinuing alcohol use has reduced her stress.
Tr. at 24. She believes that she has a strong support system, which includes her husband, her
mother, her sister, her daughters, and her friends. Tr. at 25. She testified that she has a strategy
for relapse prevention. Tr. at 25. She has learned to recognize her triggers and stressors and has
strategies for addressing them. Tr. at 30–31. She recognizes that she is at risk for relapse. Tr. at
30. The Individual testified that she does not disagree with the Psychologist’s report and has
complied with her recommendations. Tr. at 32–33. She has been attending aftercare for seven
months and intends to continue attending aftercare “for the foreseeable future.” Tr. at 33–34. She
keeps busy and physically active. Tr. at 35. Her intention is to permanently abstain from alcohol
use. Tr. at 36. She does not have the desire to drink anymore. Tr. at 37. When she was asked
when her last use of alcohol occurred, the Individual testified, “I believe it was August 16th, was
the day before I started the treatment program.”4 Tr. at 41. She did not get PEth tested in January
2023 because she was out of town. Tr. at 42–43. Since the Individual has stopped using alcohol,
several of the people close to her, including her husband, have stopped using alcohol as well. Tr.
at 44–45.
The Psychologist observed the testimony of the Individual before testifying at the hearing. She
testified that the Individual has shown rehabilitation from her AUD. Tr. at 54–55. The
Psychologist testified that while she had originally recommended that the Individual abstain from
alcohol use for nine months, the Individual had abstained from alcohol use for just seven months
at the time of the hearing.5 Tr. at 56. Nonetheless, the Psychologist stated she does not just look
at the length of time that an individual has been in recovery but also the quality of that recovery.
Tr. at 56. She testified that she was “impressed” by the Individual’s efforts. Tr. at 56. The
Psychologist noted that the Individual had gained “fundamental knowledge of how to reach
abstinence and sustain abstinence.” Tr. at 56. She further noted that the Individual “has provided
4 During the CI, the Individual indicated that she last used alcohol on August 7, 2022, which she identified, during the
CI, as the day before she started the IOP. Ex. 10 at 3–4. Exhibit B indicates that she started the IOP on August 8,
2022. Ex. B at 2. I do not believe that her inconsistent statement at the hearing was an attempt to deceive on the part
of the Individual, since it did not portray her in a more favorable light.
5 The record indicates that the Individual has abstained from alcohol use for the past nine months.
CUI//PRVCY
CUI//PRVCY
- 6 -
PEth tests which demonstrate to me that she has maintained abstinence. She’s able -- she was able
to identify the cornerstones of abstinence in terms of identifying triggers, relapse prevention plan,
coping mechanisms and support system.” Tr. at 56. The Psychologist was particularly impressed
that the Individual had influenced several people close to her to stop using alcohol. Tr. at 57.
V. Analysis
The Individual has recognized that she needed to discontinue her alcohol use and get the
appropriate treatment. She credibly testified that she has abstained from alcohol use since early
August or mid-August 2022, about nine months prior to the hearing. Five PEth tests administered
to her during that period were each negative.6 She has attended, and successfully completed, an
IOP and is regularly attending the IOP’s aftercare program. In addition, this treatment has been
supported and complemented by her attending individual counseling sessions with her therapist.
Moreover, the Individual has been able to articulate the lessons she learned from her treatment and
the insight she has gained into her relationship with alcohol and what she needed to do and will
need to keep doing in order to maintain her recovery.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four conditions that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G, three of which are present in the instant case.
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 her AUD, has successfully completed treatment at the IOP, and has been fully
participating in aftercare for seven months to address her AUD. Her nine-month period of
abstinence from alcohol use is sufficient to establish a pattern of abstinence from alcohol in
accordance with the Psychologist’s treatment recommendations. 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 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(c). In the present case, the Individual has no previous
history of treatment or relapse, has completed the initial IOP, and is now attending aftercare. Her
treatment progress has been sufficiently satisfactory to convince the DOE Psychologist that she
has been rehabilitated from her AUD. Accordingly, I find that the mitigating conditions set forth
at ¶ 23(c) are present in the instant case.
Third, 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 . . . abstinence in
6 These PEth tests include the PEth test administered to her at the time of the CI, the PEth tests documented by Exhibits
D, E, and M, and the PEth test documented by the second Exhibit L.
CUI//PRVCY
CUI//PRVCY
- 7 -
accordance with treatment recommendations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(d). As noted
above, the Individual has successfully completed the IOP and is engaged in her aftercare support
group. The Individual has abstained from all alcohol use since at least August 16, 2022, a nine-
month period of abstinence that demonstrates a clear and established pattern of abstinence in
accordance with the Psychologist’s recommendations that she abstain from alcohol for nine
months and attend the IOP. 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 and the
positive BAT 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 her 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
CUI//PRVCY