PSH-23-0089

*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: June 6, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0089
)
)
Issued: September 15, 2023
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Brenda B. Balzon, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, 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. When completing a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in August
2022, the Individual reported that he sought alcohol-related treatment in July 2020. Exhibit (Ex.)
9 at 106. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to
the Individual, which sought additional information about the Individual’s alcohol-related
treatment and alcohol use. Ex. 6. The Individual completed the LOI in January 2023. Id. at 37.
The Individual was subsequently evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist).
The LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable information
that created substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. In
the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained
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 -
that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me
as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. The DOE Counsel submitted nine numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–9) into the record and
presented the testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist at the hearing. See Transcript of Hearing
(hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual submitted five lettered exhibits (Ex. A–E) into the
record and presented the testimony of six witnesses, including himself.
II. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 1.
“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. In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychiatrist’s
March 2023 determination that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild and that he had
not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1. The LSO also cited
the DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion that the Individual “binge consume[s] alcohol to the point of
impaired judgement.” Id. Additionally, the LSO cited the results of the Individual’s March 1, 2023,
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test, which the DOE Psychiatrist determined was congruent
with moderate to heavy alcohol consumption. Id. The above allegations justify the LSO’s
invocation of Guideline G.
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 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
- 3 -
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. Findings of Fact
In January 2023, the Individual completed an LOI at the request of the LSO. Ex. 6. He stated that
he consumed alcohol daily during the month of July 2020 because he was in a depressive state. Id.
at 23–24. The Individual reported that, in July 2020, he voluntarily sought counseling related to
his alcohol use and depression from his treating therapist and treating psychiatrist through the
Veterans Administration (VA).2 Id. at 20–21. He explained that this was not an alcohol treatment
program, but, rather, it was counseling that he received when he was “drinking to[o] much” alcohol
due to a decline in his mental health at that time. Id. at 21. He stated he was diagnosed with major
depressive disorder. Id. The Individual reported that he was advised “to slow down on drinking,
but not told to stop completely.” Id. at 22.
In March 2023, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation by the DOE Psychiatrist,
which included a clinical interview (CI). Ex. 7. During the CI, the Individual told the DOE
Psychiatrist that he was first diagnosed with a depressive disorder and treated with antidepressant
medication in 2016. Id. at 48. He stated that his older brother passed away in July 2017. Id. at 42.
He stated that his brother’s main medical problem was liver disease, which was partly caused by
his alcohol use. Id. The Individual reported that his depression worsened after the death of his
brother in July 2017, and after he was discharged from the military in September 2017 due to a
back injury. Id. at 42, 48. The Individual stated that his depression continued worsening, such that
he was hospitalized for a week in November 2017, and he had a second major depressive episode
which required hospitalization in June 2019. Id.
During the CI, the Individual also told the DOE Psychiatrist that he typically drank four hard
seltzers a day on weekends or vacations; however, he stated that his alcohol consumption grew
particularly heavy in the summer of 2020. Id. at 45. He reported that his depression increased in
July 2020 due to the anniversary of his brother’s death, and he started drinking four or five hard
seltzer drinks during weekdays and eight to 11 alcoholic drinks on weekend days. Id. at 45. The
Individual told the DOE Psychiatrist that he had been diagnosed with an Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD) by the VA, but he denied any treatment had been recommended to him for his AUD. Id.
He stated that, in July 2020, he told his VA doctor about his heavy consumption, and he also
discussed it with his treating VA psychiatrist. However, he stated that his psychiatrist did not
recommend any treatment for alcohol problems but told him to “slow down” when the Individual
reported that he “was drinking too much.” Id. at 45, 48. The Individual reported that he currently
continues participating in psychological treatment which includes taking prescribed antidepressant
medication. Id. at 44. He denied any suicidal feelings or plans, and stated that he would seek help
if suicidal. Id. He also stated that his wife knows how to intervene if his depression deepens. Id.
2 The Individual had been seeing this treating psychologist and treating psychiatrist at the VA since approximately
2018 for treatment for depression. Ex. 7 at 43.
- 4 -
The Individual reported that he last drank alcohol to intoxication in July 2022, when he drank
approximately eight cans of hard seltzer during six hours. Id. at 46. He reported that he last
consumed alcohol approximately ten days before his CI when he drank four alcoholic beverages,
and he also reported the same amount of alcohol consumption approximately 17 days prior to his
CI. Id. The Individual said that his future intent is to continue weekend alcohol consumption, in
moderation, and he asserted he does not intend to drink to the point of intoxication. Id. As part of
the evaluation, the Individual underwent a PEth test, which was positive at a level of 408 ng/mL.
Id. at 47. The DOE Psychiatrist concluded that a PEth test at that level “makes it medically certain
that [the Individual] has been drinking heavily within the last 21–28 days.” Id. The DOE
Psychiatrist also concluded in his report (Report) that the Individual was likely under-reporting his
alcohol consumption. Id.
Ultimately, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for AUD,
Mild, and that he binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.3 Id. at 51. In order
to demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, he recommended that the
Individual should have a desire to enter treatment and participate in outpatient treatment of
moderate intensity. Id. He specified that “moderate intensity” means attending a treatment regimen
of either Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or SMART at least once per week, or participating in
individual alcohol treatment by a qualified alcohol abuse counselor. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist also
recommended that treatment should include that the Individual maintain abstinence from alcohol,
and he stated that the “[d]uration of treatment should be for one year in order to provide adequate
evidence of rehabilitation and reformation.” Id.
At the hearing, the Individual’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Counselor testified that she
facilitates two alcohol treatment groups, a six-week alcohol education and awareness class and a
Maintaining Changes group. Tr. at 22, 24. The EAP Counselor testified that the Individual started
attending her alcohol education and awareness class on May 25, 2023, and he completed the course
on July 13, 2023. Id. at 22; Ex. B (Individual’s Certificate of Completion for EAP Alcohol
Awareness and Education Class). She testified that the Individual actively participated in this class
and he demonstrated that he had learned lessons, including identifying different types of triggers,
and the definition of binge drinking. He also took the opportunity in class to become more aware
of his own unique relationship to alcohol. Tr. at 22–23. She further stated that, when the Individual
subsequently joined her Maintaining Changes group, she observed that he really started to open
up and share more because he saw other participants sharing their trauma and grief, which made
the Individual feel safer. Id. at 24. She stated that the Maintaining Changes group has given him
the opportunity to feel less ashamed and less stigmatized about alcohol and the death of his brother,
which he shared in the group, and she believes that the Individual feels less isolated and alone
because he is able to identify with the other participants. Id. at 24–25.
The EAP Counselor stated that she thinks the Individual is “at the early stage of recovery, and
[she] think[s] he’s committed to . . . abstaining and recovery.” Id. at 27. She explained that the
Individual is at “this beginning recovery” in learning how to tolerate his feelings and learning to
use coping mechanisms, including by engaging in the resources that he has found in the last several
3 The DOE Psychiatrist opined in his Report that the Individual’s Major Depressive Disorder does not impair his
judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 7 at 48.
- 5 -
months. Id. at 25. She testified that the Individual has talked in her group about his counseling
with his individual therapist, and she knows he sees a nurse practitioner (“PNP”) who specializes
in psychiatry; he attends AA; and he is using her group as an additional resource. Id. at 23, 25. The
EAP Counselor stated that she has seen the Individual transform from when he initially started her
first class and was a little nervous about being in a group, to coming to the realization of the effects
of his grief, loss, and depression, to making more recent changes by becoming involved in
activities and resources to support his goal of abstinence. Id. at 24, 26–27. She testified that she
encourages the Individual to continue to meet with his individual therapist and continue attending
her Maintaining Changes group. Id. at 27–28.
The Individual’s EAP therapist (the “EAP Therapist”) testified that he had his first session with
the Individual in May 2023. Id. at 38. He stated they have had three sessions together, and there
are five remaining sessions in their program. Id. at 36. He testified that their therapy is primarily
focused on learning new methods to address triggers that might be impacting the Individual’s use
of alcohol as a medium for dealing with grief and loss and how depression relates to his alcohol
use. Id. at 35–36. The EAP Therapist testified that the Individual has “already . . . made very deep
inroads into the underpinnings of . . . [his] grief, . . . loss, trauma, and [the connection] to alcohol.”
Id. at 36. He stated that because the Individual entered therapy with a lot of determination and
clarity regarding his efforts at mitigation, they were able to quickly gain valuable insight around
key events in the Individual’s life that have impacted him. Id. at 37.
The EAP Therapist asserted that the Individual has been very clear in identifying his triggers, and
he and the EAP Therapist have quickly established coping strategies that the Individual is
employing. Id. at 37. He provided the example of the July anniversary of his brother’s death and
stated that they are working on ways to positively memorialize the month of July, so that the
Individual works on allowing himself to experience his grief and loss in a safe, healthy way,
without using alcohol, instead of blocking those emotions. Id. at 45–46. The EAP Therapist also
testified that the Individual is using a breathing technique that allows him to become less inclined
to cut off from his emotions that arise from his triggers, instead of using alcohol as a protector
from his emotions. Id. at 44–45. This allows him to identify and meet his emotional needs by using
his resources and support system such has his EAP group, his wife, and his therapy sessions. Id.
at 37, 45. The EAP Therapist asserted that the Individual’s plans are to abstain from alcohol,
continue to grow and gain insight, and heal from his emotional issues. Id. at 38–39. He stated that,
even in his short period of treatment, the Individual has demonstrated “clarity, heart,
determination, and even [facing] his fears and trepidation to [address]. . . the really hard losses in
his life” and do the required work to obtain his clearance. Id. at 41.
The Individual’s other older brother (“Brother”) testified that he has been living with the Individual
for five years, and they spend all their time together, with the exception of working hours. Id. at
51, 57. He testified that he last saw the Individual consume alcohol on May 21, 2023. Id. at 63. He
testified that for the last three months, the Individual had not consumed any alcohol. Id. at 54. The
Brother testified that the Individual recognizes that he has an alcohol problem, and he is attending
AA as well as an alcohol treatment class. Id. at 55. The Brother testified that he and the Individual’s
wife are committed to supporting the Individual’s sobriety, so they make sure that there is no
alcohol in the house, and he indicated they are also a source of emotional support for the Individual.
Id. at 55–56, 58.
- 6 -
The Brother testified that he does not believe that the Individual would return to drinking alcohol
because he has had multiple opportunities to do so, yet he has remained abstinent. Id. at 58–59. He
stated that, in early June 2023, they went to their cousin’s wedding, but the Individual remained
abstinent. Id. at 59, 62–63. Additionally, the Brother stated that the Individual attended a baseball
game with his family on July 4, 2023, and although the Brother and parents drank alcohol, the
Individual did not consume any alcohol. Id. at 57. Also, the Brother testified that, in late July 2023,
he accompanied the Individual on a work trip to Las Vegas, and the Individual did not consume
any alcohol there. Id. at 62. The Brother observed that, since the Individual started alcohol
treatment, he is more goal oriented, is getting better sleep, is exercising, and has a positive, upbeat
emotional demeanor. Id. at 58, 60.
The Individual’s colleague (“Colleague”) and the Individual’s second line supervisor
(“Supervisor”) both testified at the hearing. The Colleague and Supervisor testified that they see
the Individual multiple times per week at work and have never seen the Individual appear to be
under the influence of alcohol, nor are they aware of any problems with his work performance. Id.
at 67–68; 80–81. The Colleague also stated she trusts the Individual, and the Individual is
mentoring her 17-year-old son, who has never told her about any alcohol problems involving the
Individual. Id. at 72–73. The Supervisor testified that the Individual is one his top performers, who
was promoted, and the Individual successfully takes on a mentorship role within their group. Id.
at 81. The Supervisor asserted that, in the last three months, he has observed that the Individual
has taken on more responsibilities at work and handles daily work stress so well that he also helps
his colleagues in managing their stress. Id. at 82–83.
The Individual testified that he has been abstinent from alcohol since May 21, 2023. Id. at 102. He
submitted two negative PEth tests, one from July 7, 2023, and one from August 1, 2023, to support
his assertions of abstinence. Ex. D; Ex. E. He stated that he previously saw a psychiatrist at the
VA for depression and anxiety from approximately 2019 until 2022. Id. at 110–11. He testified
that, when he told his psychiatrist about his alcohol use, the psychiatrist told him that he could
refer him to an alcohol treatment group if the Individual thought he had an issue, but the Individual
said that, at that time, even with an alcohol-related diagnosis, he did not think he had an issue with
alcohol. Id. at 111. The Individual testified that he first recognized that he had an alcohol problem
when he received the Notification Letter and read the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report. Id. at 112.
However, he admitted that he did not agree with the DOE Psychiatrist’s diagnosis of AUD until
mid-June 2023, after he had taken a few of the EAP classes. Id. at 112–14.
The Individual testified that he completed a six-week EAP alcohol education course, and he is still
attending the 12-week EAP course for Maintaining Changes. Id. at 88. He testified that, through
his participation in his EAP group and his EAP individual counseling, he came to recognize that
he has an alcohol problem, in that when he gets depressed, he consumes excessive alcohol. Id. at
88. He testified that, through his EAP group, he learned that he had been consuming a lot more
alcohol than he originally thought he was, and he learned about alcohol’s physical effects,
including the effects on his memory. Id. at 93–94. The Individual also testified that the comfort of
the group helped him to be able to voice, for the first time, his issues regarding his brother’s death.
Id. at 95. Additionally, the Individual testified that by working with his EAP Therapist, he was
able to address previously unaddressed traumas, such as the death of his brother, the depression
- 7 -
that he developed from leaving the military, and his depression from losing his cousin to suicide
three months after his brother died. Id. at 96–97. He stated that prior to three months ago, he had
a very difficult time talking about those traumas, but he has since made a lot of progress on these
issues through therapy. Id. at 97–98.
The Individual admitted that he has a problem with alcohol and testified that he introduces himself
as an alcoholic at AA meetings. Id. at 90, 93. He stated he attends AA at least once weekly in
compliance with the DOE Psychiatrist’s recommendation, and sometimes, he attends AA three to
four times a week. Id. at 90. He submitted an AA attendance verification reflecting that he attended
three AA meetings in one week in July 2023. Ex. C. He stated that, when he was in Las Vegas for
his work trip, he leaned on AA heavily because there was temptation everywhere, so he attended
an AA group online there and found that it was helpful. Id. at 87. The Individual testified that the
last AA meeting he attended was the Saturday before the hearing. Id. at 89. He indicated that he
finds greater camaraderie in his EAP group, but he stated it could be because he attends more
online AA meetings than in-person AA meetings. Id. at 90–91. The Individual also admitted that
he is stuck on Step One of AA because he is having difficulty with having the willingness to accept
that he is powerless against alcohol. Id. at 91. He explained that he refuses to give alcohol that
much power because he believes that, while there are addictions, people are all accountable for
their decisions. Id. at 92. He testified that because he is having difficulty with the first AA step, he
is considering alternative treatment programs and is interested in looking at SMART recovery. Id.
at 90, 92–93.
The Individual testified that he currently attends individual counseling, and he still sees his treating
psychiatric nurse practitioner (“PNP”) every two weeks. Id. at 89. The Individual submitted a July
21, 2023, letter from his treating PNP, who stated that she has been treating him since November
2022, and she diagnosed him with major depressive disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder,
attention deficit disorder, and AUD, Moderate in Early Remission. Ex. A. The PNP stated that she
has been treating him for medication management, and she referred him for weekly individual
therapy, with a Licensed Marriage and Family Therapist (LMFT). Id. She stated that she verified
with the LMFT that the Individual is highly engaged during their visits, and the PNP asserted that
the Individual is motivated to maintain an alcohol-free lifestyle.4 Id.
The Individual testified that he plans to continue to complete the remaining five therapy sessions
with the EAP Therapist, and he plans to continue participating in additional therapy with the
LMFT, as well as continuing to comply with medication management with his treating PNP. Id. at
99. Regarding alcohol treatment, the Individual asserted he will continue to attend his 12-week
Maintaining Changes group conducted by the EAP Counselor, and he plans to continue to attend
even after he completes the 12-week course because he gains significant benefit from the group.
Id. at 99. The Individual asserted he will continue abstaining from alcohol. Id. at 101. He also
plans to find an alternative for AA that is a better fit, but is willing to continue with AA if it is
recommended. Id. at 100. Finally, the Individual asserted he has a strong support system consisting
of his brother, his wife, his parents, and his colleagues who support and encourage him to attend
his EAP programs. Id. at 100–01.
4 The Individual testified that he is currently seeing two therapists, the LMFT and his EAP Therapist, the latter of
which testified at the hearing, and both therapists are helping him address the emotional issues that were contributing
to his alcohol use. Tr. at 98.
- 8 -
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that, although the Individual’s treating PNP diagnosed him with
AUD, Moderate, the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed him with AUD, Mild. The DOE Psychiatrist
explained, “I felt he met criteria for three of the diagnostic criteria, [a]nd generally if there’s two
or three symptoms present, you generally give a specifier of a mild alcohol use disorder.” Tr. at
120; Ex. A (letter from treating PNP). He further stated,
In a sense, he only had one dominant symptom, which was his alcohol use worsened his
depression problem. The main problem he had from his alcohol use was that it interfered
with his depressive disorder and made it worse. And that was the main problem alcohol
had been causing in his life. And it was serious. It was to the point that he required
inpatient hospitalization a couple times to the point that he was having suicidal ideation
with plans.
Id. at 120. The DOE Psychiatrist also stated that, at the time of the evaluation, the Individual was
expressing some denial to him with regard to whether he had an alcohol problem. Id. at 122.
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that he was impressed with the Individual’s honesty and
engagement with the first step of AA. Id. at 108. He stated that he thinks SMART might be a better
fit for the Individual, and he affirmed that either AA or SMART are acceptable treatment
programs. Id. at 109. The DOE Psychiatrist also stated that the Individual had shown “very good
engagement with his treatment.” Id. at 123. He pointed out that the EAP Counselor used the word
“beginning recovery,” and the DOE Psychiatrist opined that he agrees with that because he thinks
the Individual has “an excellent start, but it’s the beginning.” Id. at 124.
The DOE Psychiatrist stated that he “usually recommend[s] one year [of] treatment, and that is an
important issue here.” Id. at 123–24. He explained his reasons for recommending one year of
recovery, including that the DSM-5 has a guideline that one year is the transition from early
recovery to sustained recovery. Id. at 124. Moreover, he explained that the one-year timeframe is
important because it shows that a person can make it through “triggers that you have to survive”
and still maintain sobriety. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist stated that the third reason he uses a one-year
timeframe for recovery is based on a study for a drug to treat alcoholism, and the study found that
of the people in the placebo group who expressed a commitment to one year of abstinence, only
ten percent were successful at maintaining abstinence for one year. Id. at 125. As such, the DOE
Psychiatrist stated that, if the Individual abstains from alcohol for one year, this shows he is in the
top ten percent, and the DOE Psychiatrist would feel confident in opining that there is sufficient
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation as it would show that he can successfully make it through
one year of his triggers. Id.
The DOE Psychiatrist noted that the Individual was able to make it through three months of
sobriety, including the significant trigger of the anniversary of his brother’s death. Id. at 125. He
indicated that during the Individual’s evaluation with him in March 2023, the Individual seemed
to use the trigger of his deceased brother’s birthday as an excuse to justify why he drank alcohol
in February. Id. at 126. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that one of the problems with alcohol is that
when a person has a difficult problem in their life, they can use it as a justification to drink alcohol,
and the DOE Psychiatrist opined that, at this point, the Individual might be underestimating the
- 9 -
power of alcohol. Id. at 127. He opined that the Individual is “in excellent early recovery.” Id. He
stated that the Individual has progressed from “where I saw him, where he had an active alcohol
use disorder, because he was still drinking, into he’s now in early recovery.” Id. at 129. The DOE
Psychiatrist testified that “it sounds like [the Individual has] got an excellent first step, but it’s only
three months and it’s a difficult plan.” Id. He then stated, “I do not think there’s adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation at three months.” 5 Id.
V. Analysis
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline G 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; 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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
While the Individual has provided evidence through witness testimony and PEth testing that he
has abstained from alcohol since late May 2023, his alcohol use is recent such that I cannot find
that so much time has passed that it is unlikely to recur. To his credit, the Individual has made
concerted efforts at recently starting alcohol treatment including through his EAP groups and EAP
Therapist. However, both the Individual’s EAP Counselor and the DOE Psychiatrist opined that
the Individual is in “beginning recovery,” and the DOE Psychiatrist provided important reasons
for his recommendation of achieving one year of treatment and abstinence, including being able
to survive difficult triggers while maintaining sobriety. In this case, the Individual has a history of
consuming alcohol when he is depressed, including when he is triggered by memories of his
5 The DOE Psychiatrist testified he wanted to point out in fairness to the Individual, that although his Report was
produced just five months prior to the hearing, he recommended one year of recovery. Id. at 130. He stated that the
Individual’s frustration with the process seems justified because, “in a sense, it’s not fair, he doesn’t have a chance
to meet my one-year requirement.” Id.
- 10 -
deceased brother. Although he is at the beginning stages of working with this treatment providers
to address these triggers, he has not yet demonstrated whether he is able to abstain for one year
while surviving the very difficult triggers of anniversaries involving his deceased brother’s
birthday and death. Furthermore, the DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual might be
underestimating the power of alcohol, which I find is a potential concern for relapse if not
sufficiently addressed in treatment with progress either through AA or SMART recovery as
recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist. As such, the passage of only three months between the
Individual’s last self-reported alcohol consumption and the hearing, is too little to establish that
the Individual will not return to problematic alcohol consumption again. Therefore, I find that the
Individual has not presented enough evidence to satisfy the first mitigating condition under
Guideline G. Id. at ¶ 23(a).
While the Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use and taken steps to overcome
his problems with alcohol, he has not established a pattern of modified consumption or abstinence
from alcohol in accordance with treatment recommendations. Id. at ¶ 23(b). In his Report, the DOE
Psychiatrist stated that he would consider the Individual rehabilitated after approximately one year
of treatment. The record shows that the Individual began treatment approximately three months
prior to the hearing, when he started attending EAP alcohol group classes, and he last consumed
alcohol approximately three months prior to the hearing. Therefore, as the Individual has not
established a pattern of abstinence in compliance with treatment recommendations, I find that the
second mitigating condition under Guideline G is inapplicable. Id.
The Individual is participating in counseling with his EAP Therapist and an additional
psychotherapist, as well as a 12-week EAP Maintaining Changes group. He also has no previous
history of treatment and relapse. While he has made impressive progress in a brief time, he is still
quite early in the recovery process, achieving just three months of treatment prior to the hearing.
Moreover, although he is attending AA meetings, he acknowledged that he has not progressed past
the first AA step and is interested in finding alternatives that are a better fit for him, such as
SMART recovery. The DOE Psychiatrist reiterated his recommendation from his Report that
SMART is a suitable alternative treatment for the Individual. However, the Individual has yet to
start attending SMART recovery. For these reasons, I find the third mitigating condition
inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(c).
While the Individual completed the first EAP alcohol education course, he is still “at the early
stage of recovery,” as stated by the EAP Counselor. In addition, the EAP Counselor further
explained that the Individual is at “this beginning recovery” in learning how to tolerate his feelings
and learning to use coping mechanisms by engaging with the resources he has been developing,
which includes the resource of her 12-week Maintaining Changes group. As such, she stated she
is encouraging him to continue participating in her Maintaining Changes group, which he has not
yet completed. Thus, while the first EAP course is a good start, in order for the Individual to
progress beyond the “early stage of recovery,” he needs more time in treatment. Additionally, as
discussed above, the Individual has not yet progressed past Step One of AA, or pursued an
alternative treatment such as SMART recovery. Moreover, the DOE Psychologist recommended
that treatment should include abstinence and “the duration of treatment should be for one year in
order to provide adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation.” Therefore, since the
Individual has not yet completed his Maintaining Changes group or the additional treatment
- 11 -
recommended by the DOE Psychologist, and he has not yet demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations,
he has not met the fourth mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
For the reasons stated above, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns
raised by the LSO under Guideline G.
VI. Conclusion
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. 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 at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Brenda B. Balzon
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals