PSH-23-0059

*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: February 10, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0059
)
______________________________________)
Issued: June 23, 2023
_______________
Administrative Judge Decision
_______________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s
(DOE) regulations, as set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for
Access to Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully
considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security
Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or
Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In April 2022, as part of the security clearance application process, the Individual
completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). Exhibit (Ex.) 9. In the section
entitled “Use of Alcohol,” the Individual affirmatively answered a question regarding whether his
use of alcohol has negatively impacted his work performance, relationships, finances, or resulted
in intervention by law enforcement. Id. at 43. He further disclosed that, in approximately 2018, he
sought out counseling or treatment for his alcohol use, but he noted that he was unable to secure
the services due to his lack of health insurance at the time. Id. Following his disclosures on the
QNSP, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE consultant psychiatrist
(DOE Psychiatrist) in October 2022. Ex. 7. After evaluating the Individual, the DOE Psychiatrist
diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, and he determined that the Individual
had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 7–8.
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 -
Due to unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol use, the Local Security
Office (LSO) informed the Individual in a Notification Letter that it possessed reliable information
that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. In the Summary
of Security Concerns (SSC), attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised a security concern under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 2.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations to request an administrative review hearing. Id. The Director of the Office of Hearings
and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I subsequently
conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel submitted
nine numbered exhibits (Exs. 1–9) into the record. The Individual did not introduce any exhibits
into the record, but he presented his own testimony. The hearing transcript in the case will be cited
as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC specifically cites Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. Guideline G relates to
security risks arising from excessive alcohol consumption. “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.
- 3 -
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychiatrist’s October 2022 determination
that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, without adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation.2 Ex. 1. The LSO additionally cited that the result of the
Individual’s Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which he underwent as part of the October 2022
psychological evaluation, was positive at a level of 1,697 ng/mL, and that the DOE Psychiatrist
noted this was congruent with heavy alcohol consumption. Id.
IV. Findings of Fact
A. Psychological Evaluation
After the October 2022 evaluation with the DOE Psychiatrist, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report
(Report), detailing his findings. Ex. 7. According to the Report, the Individual disclosed that “he
is ‘battling alcoholism.’” Id. at 3. The Individual elaborated, telling the DOE Psychiatrist that,
around 2016 or 2017, the Individual began consuming beer and hard liquor to the point of
intoxication on a daily basis. Id. at 3. Then, in approximately 2018, upon separating from his wife,
“he increased his alcohol consumption until he was eventually consuming a fifth of ‘cheap vodka’
a day.” Id. The Individual disclosed to the DOE Psychiatrist that, at one point, he was consuming
alcohol before, during, and after work, and although he did not think that he consumed enough
alcohol during the day to be impaired, he was consuming alcohol “to stop withdrawal symptoms.”
Id. The Individual clarified that he would become “drunk” after work. Id. The Individual told the
DOE Psychiatrist that he “look[ed] into treatment” at his local medical university, but he
determined that that he could not afford it. Id.
According to the Report, by February 2021, the Individual’s father traveled to the state in which
the Individual was living to monitor him as he became abstinent from alcohol. Id. The Individual
stated that he was able to remain abstinent for two months, but he disclosed that he began using
alcohol again “due to feeling lonely.” Id. The Individual stated that he increased his alcohol use
until he was, again, consuming a fifth of vodka per day. Id. He told the DOE Psychiatrist that he
continued in this pattern until early 2022, when he moved across country to a state in which he had
family support. Id. at 4. The Individual noted that, at that time, he had withdrawal symptoms from
alcohol, including shakes and elevated vital signs. Id. The Individual reported to the DOE
Psychiatrist that he was prescribed a medication that caused an adverse reaction when he consumed
alcohol, and while on the medication, he remained abstinent from alcohol from March to August
of 2022. Id. Around August of 2022, his medication was changed, and he resumed his alcohol
consumption as he felt that the medication “did not work.”3 Id. The Individual told the DOE
2 It should be noted that the SCC miscited the edition of the DSM that the DOE Psychiatrist utilized in making his
diagnosis. See Ex. 1 at 1.
3 According to the Report, prior to the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist contacted the medical provider (Provider)
who had prescribed the aforementioned medications. Ex. 7. at 6. The Provider indicated that she had seen the
Individual once in early August 2022 and had one follow-up phone call with him. Id. She noted that she had scheduled
a follow-up appointment with the Individual, but the Individual failed to show. Id. The Provider diagnosed the
Individual with Alcohol Abuse and Alcohol Withdrawal. Id. She noted that she switched the Individual’s medication
due to a concern regarding the Individual’s liver function, and although she ordered laboratory tests for his liver, the
Individual did not have the tests performed. Id.
- 4 -
Psychiatrist that he planned to speak with his primary care provider about resuming the previous
medication. Id.
The Individual reported to the DOE Psychiatrist that, at the time of the evaluation, he was
consuming two to six beers of 6% alcohol by volume, over the course of four to five hours, on
most days. Id. The Individual noted that he usually felt intoxicated after this level of consumption
but believed that he had developed a tolerance to the alcohol. Id. The Individual disclosed that he
had gone to work hungover, and he believed he was addicted to alcohol, was unable to stop
consuming it, and had difficulty controlling how much he consumes. Id. He additionally stated
that he thought the alcohol was “killing” him. Id. According to the Report, the Individual expressed
an intent to cease his alcohol use and remain sober. Id. at 5. He wanted to resume a medication to
help him reach his goal, and he “would like to access the Employee Concerns Program” (ECP) for
assistance. Id.
As part of the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist ordered a PEth test which returned a positive result
of 1,697 ng/mL. Id. at 6. The DOE Psychiatrist noted that this PEth level was “congruent with
heavy alcohol consumption” and cited a study indicating that a PEth level of 1,749 ng/mL was
found in individuals consuming an average of seventeen standard alcohol drinks per day. Id. As
such, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual was engaging in a “much higher
consumption” than he was reporting. Id.
Ultimately, the DOE Psychiatrist determined that the Individual met the criteria for Alcohol Use
Disorder, Severe. Id. He explained that the Individual had symptoms of:
inability to control his alcohol use (both consuming more than
intended and unsuccessful attempts to cut down), tolerance,
withdrawal symptoms when he stopped use, continued use despite
physical problems caused by his alcohol use, spending a great deal
of time using alcohol (every evening) and failure to meet
expectations at work (going in hungover and going to work
intoxicated in the past).
Id. The DOE Psychiatrist noted that because the Individual continued to consume alcohol to the
point of intoxication, despite knowing the issues alcohol had caused in his life, there was not
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
The DOE Psychiatrist advised that, due to the severity of the Individual’s disorder, the Individual
should first discuss a medical detoxication protocol with his medical providers. Id. at 7. In order
to establish evidence of rehabilitation, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual
engage in an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), followed by a year of weekly IOP aftercare or
weekly outpatient counseling. Id. He additionally recommended that the Individual participate in
recovery meetings at least three times per week for one year. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist further
recommended that the Individual undergo random breath and urine alcohol tests through his place
of employment and undergo monthly PEth testing, which would be at his own expense, for a year.
Id. He also recommended that the Individual should take any medications prescribed to him by his
medical providers for the Alcohol Use Disorder. Id. To show evidence of reformation, the DOE
- 5 -
Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual remain abstinent from alcohol for a period of one
year; however, he noted that, due to the severity of the Individual’s disorder, he advised that the
Individual remain abstinent from alcohol indefinitely. Id
B. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf. He stated that he had read the Report
and understood it to say that he is “diagnosed as an alcoholic,” and he “definitely need[s] help.”4
Tr. at 17. He additionally noted that he agreed with the Report. Id. The Individual testified that, as
of the date of the hearing, he was “still drinking” and became intoxicated the weekend prior to the
hearing. Id. at 21–23. He noted that, since working for the DOE contractor, he had taken leave due
to his excessive alcohol consumption. Id. at 23. The Individual testified that he had not yet sought
the support of the Employee Assistance Program (EAP), entered an IOP, participated in a recovery
groups, or undergone any alcohol testing. Id. at 20–21, 34. However, the Individual stated that he
intends to “go through pretty much exactly” that which the DOE Psychiatrist recommended to
achieve rehabilitation and reformation from the Alcohol Use Disorder. Id. at 17. He testified that
he planned to call his primary care provider after the hearing to set up an appointment to share the
Report “so that the [primary care provider] knows exactly what [he] . . . need[s to] go through.”
Id. at 20.
The Individual explained that his motivation for overcoming the Alcohol Use Disorder was “not
even so much for the clearance, it’s just for myself, because I really want help.” Id. at 18. He
testified:
I don’t want to drink. I mean, I want to get away from it. It’s [taken]
a big part of my life. It’s just – it’s one of the hardest struggles I’ve
been through. I mean, it’s addiction. But I want to get away from it,
and I need to get away from it.
Id. at 24. The Individual expressed that he intends to “better [his] life,” but he just needs more time
to do so. Id. at 41.
A DOE consultant psychiatrist (DOE Expert) also testified at the hearing.5 Id. at 48. The DOE
Expert testified that he reviewed the Report, did not have any concerns with the DOE Psychiatrist’s
diagnosis, and thought that the conclusions in the Report were “well reasoned.” Id. at 49. The DOE
Expert also noted that the DOE Psychiatrist’s recommendations for rehabilitation and reformation
from the Alcohol Use Disorder were “standard.” Id. He noted that the Individual is likely still
consuming alcohol to excess, and although the Individual intended to get started with the treatment
recommendations, “which [was] a good sign,” he had not yet begun the treatment process. Id. at
50. As such, the DOE Expert concluded that the Individual had not yet demonstrated adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
4 The Individual testified that he was only able to access a copy of the Report a few days prior to the hearing. Tr. at
20. The record indicates, however, that a copy of the Report was included with the Notification Letter that was sent
to the Individual in December of 2022. See id. at 37.
5 The DOE Psychiatrist who evaluated the Individual was unavailable to testify at the hearing. As such, a different
DOE consultant psychiatrist testified in his stead. Tr. 48–49.
- 6 -
V. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the Individual and DOE Expert during the hearing. In resolving the
question of the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the
applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due
deliberation, I have determined that the Individual has not sufficiently mitigated the security
concerns cited by the LSO under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Therefore, I find
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. The specific findings that I make
in support of this decision are discussed below.
Regarding Guideline G, “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” is a condition that could raise a security concern and disqualify an individual from
holding a security clearance. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(d). Conditions that may mitigate a
Guideline G security concern 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 maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of actions
taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
modified alcohol 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.
Id. at ¶ 23.
In this case, the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe,
and the Individual himself acknowledged that he was an “alcoholic.” The Individual candidly
testified that he is still consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication. Although I found his
testimony regarding his intent to start treatment to be sincere, the Individual has not yet become
abstinent from alcohol and has not begun or completed any treatment to address the Alcohol Use
Disorder. As such, at this time, none of the above mitigating conditions apply, and I cannot find
that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security concerns.
VII. Conclusion
- 7 -
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I have found that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
the security concerns associated with Guidelines G. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth in 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals