PSH-23-0070

*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: April 11, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0070
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 28, 2023
__________________________
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 access authorization should not be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is an applicant for employment with a DOE Contractor, for a position which requires
that he hold a security clearance. Derogatory information was discovered regarding the Individual’s
alcohol use and psychological condition. 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 OHA Director 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 testimony of one witness and testified on his own behalf. The LSO presented the
testimony of a DOE-Contractor Psychologist (the Psychologist) who evaluated the Individual. See
Transcript of Hearing (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 12 exhibits, marked as
Exhibits 1 through 12 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted ten exhibits, marked
as Exhibits A through J.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
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 -
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 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) 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 under this guideline 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.
Id. at ¶ 22.
In its Summary of Security Concerns, the LSO cited the following information:
A. On June 12, 2019, [the Individual] was approved for Administrative Review
(AR) based upon concerns about his use of alcohol. The AR process was ended
on June 15, 2019, with unresolved security concerns, upon notification from his
employer that [the Individual] was no longer employed nor would need an
access authorization;
- 3 -
B. In the Report of Investigation (ROI) Questionnaire for National Security
Positions, [the Individual] listed having been ordered by DOE to be evaluated
by a DOE Consultant Psychologist in 2018 for his alcohol use; and
C. [The Individual] was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist, [sic], on
August 8, 2022. In the report, [the Psychologist] diagnosed [the Individual] with
DSM 5 Alcohol Use Disorder. [The Psychologist] opined [the Individual] has
been and continues to be a user of alcohol to excess and alcohol misuse habits
remain a significant concern and risk for unreliability. There is a lack of
evidence to indicate adequate rehabilitation or self-reformation of habitual
alcohol misuse, and there is a high probability of an unresolved alcohol use
disorder that could impair judgement, trustworthiness, and reliability.
Ex. 3 at 4. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline G are justified.
Guideline I states that certain “emotional, mental, and personality conditions” can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 27. However, a formal
diagnosis of a disorder is not required to raise a concern under this guideline. Id. Conditions that
could raise a security concern under this guideline include:
(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.
In its Summary of Security Concerns, the LSO invoked Guideline I and cited information also
relied upon to invoke Guideline G: the Individual’s unresolved security concerns during the AR
process in June 2019, and the Individual’s diagnosis, by the Psychologist, of Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD), Mild. Ex. 3 at 4. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline I are justified.
Id.
- 4 -
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting or
continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and security
and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The entire process is a
conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.” Adjudicative
Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of 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
In October 2015, the Individual sought employment with a company that was, at the time, a DOE
contractor and began the processes to obtain a security clearance in 2017. Ex. 11 at 64, 74–75. In
2018, the Individual was referred for a psychological evaluation (the 2018 Evaluation) because of
questions that arose during his background investigation. Ex. 12 at 3. During the 2018 Evaluation,
a DOE Contractor psychologist (different than the one who evaluated the Individual in 2022) told
the Individual that his use of alcohol was “excessive” and “did not conform to recommended
guidelines” Id. The report of the 2018 Evaluation showed the psychologist diagnosed the Individual
with “Alcohol Use Disorder that is not yet sufficiently rehabilitated or reformed.” Id. The
psychologist recommended the Individual “sustain a minimum of six (6) months of abstinence,
participate in weekly outpatient counseling with a substance abuse specialist to support an adequate
recovery, and discuss with the counselor what level of alcohol use was advisable, if any, to maintain
a stable recovery.” Id. at 8. The psychologist also recommended the Individual undergo random
alcohol testing to provide evidence of alcohol recovery. Id. Shortly after the 2018 Evaluation, the
Individual accepted a position with a different employer, one that did not require a security
clearance, and his background investigation was discontinued, and the Individual did not receive
the psychologist’s report from the evaluation. Tr. at 64, 83.
- 5 -
In April 2021, the Individual began employment with a new DOE contractor who initiated a new
investigation to determine the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance. Ex. 11 at 23; Ex. 12
at 3. In August 2022, the Individual was evaluated (the 2022 Evaluation) by the Psychologist who
issued a report of his findings (the Report) a few weeks later. Ex. 12. The Psychologist also noted
in his Report that the Individual had a history of alcohol misuse. Ex. 12 at 3, 6. The Report indicates
the Individual’s excessive consumption of alcohol began while in high school and escalated during
college. Id. at 6. The Individual reported to the Psychologist that between 2015 and 2017, he
experienced multiple “alcohol blackout[s]” and drove a car while intoxicated at least twice during
that time. Id. The Psychologist noted that the Individual tried to limit his use of alcohol to “(4)
drinks on a single occasion and/or not more than four (4) drinks on a weekend, [but] he was unable
and/or unwilling to adhere to that limit when he participated in certain social events,” with his
friends and family. Id. at 7.
In the Report, the Psychologist opined that the Individual did not follow the treatment
recommendations that were made during the 2018 Evaluation and the Individual’s previously
diagnosed AUD was not resolved. Id. at 8, 10. The Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with
AUD, Mild. Id. at 17. The Psychologist opined that the Individual should abstain from alcohol for
not less than six months, participate in weekly outpatient counseling with a substance abuse
specialist, and undergo random alcohol testing, “preferably a [PEth]2 or similar test” to provide
evidence of successful abstinence and alcohol recovery. Id. at 18.
At the hearing, the Individual’s co-worker testified that he met the Individual in March 2019. Tr.
at 18. Since that time, they had consumed alcohol together four times at dinners and receptions
during business travel, once during an observance of the co-worker’s religion, and three or four
more times socially. Id. at 19–20. During work trips, the Individual would consume one or two
drinks; during social occasions, he would consume one to three drinks. Id. at 20, 22. During a recent
work trip, the co-worker did not observe the Individual consuming any alcohol. Id. at 20. The co-
worker recalled that the Individual’s behavior was appropriate, professional, and controlled when
he consumed alcohol. Id. at 21, 23–24.
The co-worker further testified that he and the Individual have discussed the Individual’s drinking,
but “he never really ever called it alcohol abuse.” Tr. at 35. The Individual told the co-worker that
his administrative review process was taking longer than usual and that he met with the
Psychologist in August 2022 to talk about his alcohol consumption. Id. at 35, 42–43. As the hearing
approached, the Individual told the co-worker that there was a concern about his alcohol
consumption and asked the co-worker to serve as a witness for this hearing. Id. at 35–36, 43. He
said the Individual told him there was going to be a report and that the report indicates he has a
drinking problem. Id. at 44. He stated the Individual never told him what came out of the meeting
in August 2022, and he did not ask. Id. He also stated he understood that when the Individual
switched contractors, the Individual’s clearance process had to restart, and he did not know the
Individual was diagnosed with AUD in 2018. Id. at 46. He also stated that if he were told that the
2 A Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test measures a blood sample for levels of an alcohol byproduct. Direct Ethanol
Biomarker Testing: PETH, Mayo Clinic Laboratories, (last visited June 28, 2023) https://news
.mayocliniclabs.com/2022/09/13/direct-ethanol-biomarker-testing-peth-test-in-focus/. The test can detect alcohol
consumption in the three to four weeks preceding the test. Id.
- 6 -
Individual went through an administrative review process in 2018 and was diagnosed with AUD,
this information would not have had any effect on his opinion of the Individual. Id. at 45.
The Individual submitted several exhibits estimating a person’s blood alcohol concentration (BAC)
under a variety of scenarios which the Individual believed reflected his BAC during occasions in
which he had typically consumed alcohol. Exs. B–H. The Individual explained that while
consuming alcohol during these various scenarios, he does not display erratic, impaired, or
otherwise risky behavior. Tr. at 68–74. However, the Psychologist testified that the estimates were
not reliable because they did not consider information such as the pace at which the Individual
consumed alcohol and his level of dehydration. Id. at 166.
The Individual also submitted an exhibit containing the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism (NIAA) definition of binge drinking. Ex. A. The Individual explained that after reading
the Summary of Security Concerns, which alleged he “continues to be a user of alcohol to excess,”
he thought he was diagnosed as a binge drinker. Tr. at 80–81, 109–110. However, he admitted that
the Summary of Security Concerns raised his AUD diagnosis without mention of binge drinking;
he also admitted that the amount of alcohol consumed was not one of the factors that led to his
diagnosis. Id.at 109–11.
The Individual submitted results of a liver enzyme test, but no explanation of the results was
included. Ex. I. The Individual testified that his physician told him a liver enzyme test would screen
for signs of alcohol abuse and liver damage associated with heavy drinking. Tr. at 101. He
understood the test was a medical test, but his doctor told him it could screen for alcohol abuse. Id.
He stated that he chose not to follow the Psychologist’s recommendation to take a PEth test because
he thought a blood test “would have included the same information.” Id. at 102. After the hearing,
he submitted the results of a PEth test, which was negative for alcohol consumed in the three to
four weeks prior to the hearing.3 Ex. J.
The Individual testified that from 2015 to 2019, he was employed by a DOE contractor and began
the process to receive a security clearance in 2017. Tr. at. 64. He remembered undergoing the 2018
Evaluation, but he stated he never saw the report or any of the recommendations or determinations
made because he took a new job before receiving it. Id. He understood that the 2018 Evaluation
concerned his alcohol use and testified that, after the evaluation, he began to “reduce [his] alcohol
consumption to what would be acceptable limits in [his] life.” Id. at 86. He stated he did not adhere
to the advice he was given in 2018 because of “the social aspect of [his] family and friends.” Id. at
91. When family would visit him, he would drink with them during dinner or while tailgating. Id.
at 104. The Individual stated that during 2023, he “fully abstained from alcohol consumption since
April 1st with additional abstinence during the month of January to demonstrate that [he is] in full
control of [his] tendencies related to alcohol consumption.” Id. at 67
The Individual testified that after the 2022 Evaluation, he did not think his level of alcohol
consumption “was that severe of a problem” and he did not think it would reach administrative
review. Tr. at. 85, 93–94. He thought the 2022 Evaluation was conducted “to gather more
information more for awareness.” Id. at 93. After the 2022 Evaluation, the Individual believed he
could “refine” his alcohol consumption and “get it better under control.” Id. at 85. He testified that,
3 Because the Individual testified that he was confused about the difference between the use of blood testing and PEth
testing to measure alcohol consumption, the Individual was provided an opportunity to undergo a PEth test. Tr. At 103.
In May 2023, the Individual underwent PEth testing and submitted the results before the administrative record was
closed. Ex. J.
- 7 -
prior to April 2022, he only drank at social events with family and friends and was more aware of
the amount of alcohol he was consuming. Id. He testified that he never drinks alcohol on nights
before going to the gym. Id. at 118.
The Individual further testified that he did not think he needed professional rehabilitation to reduce
his alcohol consumption. Tr. at 98. After he read the Report, he became “more inclined to consider”
the Psychologist’s treatment recommendations as an option. Id. at 98–99. When asked why he took
action based on his own opinion of his recovery needs instead of the Psychologist’s, the Individual
responded it was due, in part, to stubbornness and ignorance. Id. at 107. When asked if his spouse
was aware that he was involved in an administrative review process concerning his security
clearance, the Individual stated his spouse was aware that he had a meeting, and she was not to
disturb him. Id. at 99. He testified that he understood his spouse was the only individual who could
attest to his recent abstinence, but he stated he did not want his family involved in this process. Id.
The Individual further testified that since April 2023, he had gone out to dinner with friends without
consuming any alcohol. Tr. at 104. He explained that he had not abstained after the 2018 Evaluation
because he did not know that his alcohol consumption was problematic. Id. at 128. He testified that
he had been abstaining since April because his level of alcohol consumption had been deemed
unacceptable by the DOE. Id. He also stated he had felt positive health effects from abstinence,
such as more energy and better sleep; he testified that he could continue to abstain for an extended
period of time. Id. at 129.
The Psychologist opined that during the 2022 Evaluation, the Individual did not yet understand the
seriousness of his alcohol issues and did not appear to understand the serious standard required to
hold a security clearance. Tr. at 145. He contrasted the Individual’s stated personal, absolute ban
on drinking the night before a workout with the Individual’s unwillingness to abstain from alcohol
when abstention was recommended to get a security clearance. Id. at 145–46. He noted that the
Individual would sometimes choose to exceed his self-imposed limits on the amount of alcohol he
would consume on a single occasion, which indicated to him that the Individual had difficulty
controlling his alcohol use. Id. at 149–49. The Psychologist opined that the Individual still had an
active AUD, which he testified was the psychological condition referred to in his report, that was
not rehabilitated or resolved. Id. at 156, 162, 163–64. He stated that the Individual’s prognosis
would be very good if he had maintained a longer period of abstinence and completed a treatment
program. Id. at 163. However, he testified that he did not believe the Individual had established a
pattern of abstinence or modified consumption. Id. at 167. He stated that rehabilitation of the AUD
would resolve the psychological condition that he referred to in his report. Id. at 164.
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
- 8 -
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 ¶ 2(b). In reaching my 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 restoring the
Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
A. Guideline G
Under Guideline G, conditions that could mitigate 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.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), the Individual has a history of problematic alcohol
consumption extending over more than a decade. The Individual’s alcohol consumption was
frequent and did not occur under unique or unusual circumstances; the Individual admitted to
consuming multiple alcoholic beverages during social outings with friends, during business trips,
and at home. He also admitted that common social occasions were a cause of his difficulty
maintaining abstinence. During the hearing, the Individual admitted that he had not been able to
maintain a consistent period of abstinence from alcohol, had been unable to adhere to his own self-
prescribed limits of alcohol consumption, had not followed the recommendations of the
Psychologist, and had not resolved or sought treatment for his AUD diagnosis. The Individual
further testified that he had been unable to maintain his abstinence for more than about two months
at a time. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s history of alcohol use continues to cast doubt on
his reliability, trustworthiness, and good judgment. Furthermore, I am unable to conclude that the
- 9 -
Individual’s concerning level of alcohol consumption is unlikely to recur. Accordingly, mitigating
factor (a) is not applicable.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), I am not convinced that the Individual acknowledges his
maladaptive pattern of alcohol use. Because he did not believe that his alcohol consumption was
actually severe, the Individual relied on staying within generic guidelines to ensure that he did not
consume too much alcohol. Even so, he admitted that he would consciously choose to exceed those
limits at times. He also did not abstain from alcohol until January 2023, despite being informed by
the Psychologist in August 2022 that his drinking was problematic and chose to return to alcohol
shortly thereafter during February and March 2023. Prior to the hearing, the Individual has been
abstinent since April 2023. Additionally, the Individual did not believe he required professional
treatment for his AUD, despite having such treatment recommended by a mental health
professional, the Psychologist. At the hearing, the Psychologist did not believe that the Individual
had clearly established a modified pattern of abstinence or modified consumption. I agree,
particularly given the Individual’s history of being unable to sustain abstinence for more than about
two months and his history of exceeding his self-imposed limits on alcohol consumption. For these
reasons, I cannot find that mitigating condition (b) is applicable.
Regarding mitigating factors (c) and (d), the Individual has not submitted sufficient evidence of
treatment or modified alcohol consumption or abstinence to resolve his AUD. The Individual
testified he abstained from alcohol for one month, in January, and for a second month, in April
2023, after having received the LSO’s Notification letter in March 2023. This pattern echoes his
previous attempts at abstinence, which typically lasted two months or less. Furthermore, the
Individual has not enrolled in, much less completed, any treatment program to address his AUD.
After the 2018 Evaluation, the Individual understood that his level of alcohol consumption was
concerning to DOE, but, because he was no longer seeking a security clearance and was not
personally concerned about his alcohol consumption, he did not enroll in an alcohol treatment
program. The Individual testified that he felt more inclined to seek treatment after reading the
Report from the 2022 Evaluation but again declined to enroll in a treatment program. Accordingly,
I cannot find that mitigating factor (c) or (d) is applicable.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Guideline G security concerns are mitigated.
B. Guideline I
Under Guideline I, conditions that could mitigate security concerns include:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
- 10 -
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual's
previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of
recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has
been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional
instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
The Psychologist testified, and the Summary of Security Concerns stated, that the Individual’s
AUD was a psychological condition that could impair his judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability.
The Individual did not comply with the Psychologist’s treatment recommendations and did not
enroll in a treatment program; mitigating conditions (a) and (b) do not, therefore, apply. The
Psychologist testified that the Individual still suffers from AUD that is not in remission. Until the
Individual receives treatment for his AUD, it continues to actively afflict him; mitigating conditions
(c), (d), and (e) do not, therefore, apply.
Until the Individual is rehabilitated from AUD, I cannot find that the Guideline I concerns are
mitigated.
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 I of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has not succeeded in fully resolving
those concerns. Therefore, I cannot 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 not 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