PSH-23-0090

*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-23-0090
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: August 30, 2023
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material.”1 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that
the Individual’s security clearance should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires that she hold a
security clearance. In 2022, the Individual informed her supervisor that she would be receiving
outpatient substance abuse treatment and would need a leave of absence from work to do so. The
leave was granted and the Individual began treatment. After an investigation into the Individual’s
alcohol use, the Local Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing her that she was entitled to a hearing
before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding her eligibility
to continue holding a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge
in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e) and (g), the
Individual presented the testimony of two witnesses—her supervisor and her daughter—and
testified on her own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist who had
evaluated the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted
11 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 11 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted
nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through I.
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-
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guidelines G and I of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline G states that excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security concern
include:
(a) Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence,
fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents of concern,
regardless of the frequency of the individual's alcohol use or whether the individual has
been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated
or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare and safety of others,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless
of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician,
clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use
disorder;
(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations,
after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation, treatment,
or abstinence.
Id. at ¶ 22.
Guideline I states that “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there
to be a concern under this guideline.” Id. at ¶ 27. Conditions that may cause a security concern
include:
-3-
(a) Behavior that casts doubt on an individual's judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, not covered under any other guideline and that may indicate an emotional,
mental, or personality condition, including, but not limited to, irresponsible, violent, self-
harm, suicidal, paranoid, manipulative, impulsive, chronic lying, deceitful, exploitative, or
bizarre behaviors;
(b) An opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that the individual has a
condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness;
(c) Voluntary or involuntary inpatient hospitalization;
(d) Failure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed
psychological/psychiatric condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness, including, but not limited to, failure to take prescribed medication or
failure to attend required counseling sessions; and
(e) Pathological gambling, the associated behaviors of which may include unsuccessful
attempts to stop gambling; gambling for increasingly higher stakes, usually in an attempt
to cover losses; concealing gambling losses; borrowing or stealing money to fund gambling
or pay gambling debts; and family conflict resulting from gambling.
Id. at ¶ 28.
The LSO alleges that in February 2023, a DOE consultant psychologist (the Psychologist)
evaluated the individual and diagnosed her with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, Major
Depressive Disorder (MDD), Moderate, and Generalized Anxiety Disorder with Panic Attacks
(GAD), which could impair her judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Accordingly, the LSO’s
security concerns under Guidelines G and I are justified.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or
restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly
consistent with the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that
security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
-4-
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting her 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
The Individual testified that she started consuming alcohol nightly at the end of 2021. Tr. at 19.
Prior to that she had consumed occasionally. Id. The Individual began drinking nightly after
receiving a two-sentence letter informing her that her estranged mother had died. Id. at 20. She
was also dealing with significant changes and stressors in her family life. Id. The Individual began
drinking two to four drinks per night in late 2021 and eventually progressed to six to eight drinks
per night. Id. at 19–20. In the summer of 2022, the Individual decided to get help and spoke with
her supervisor about what to do. Id. at 98.
The supervisor testified that the Individual had done some research into treatment before speaking
with her, but the supervisor had strongly suggested that the Individual attend an intensive
outpatient program (IOP). Tr. at 11. She testified that she checked in with the Individual about
once per week. Id. She had noticed that the Individual appeared to be feeling “down” before going
to the IOP. Id. at 11–12. She testified that she had noticed the Individual become happier, more
resilient, and more confident since going to the IOP. Id. at 12–13. She specified that the Individual
had not had any problems with her work or inappropriate reactions in the workplace before going
to the IOP. Id. The supervisor testified that the Individual had not had any issues with handling
secure information. Id. at 14. She described the Individual as honest and trustworthy and stated
that she believed the Individual was brave for asking for help when she needed it. Id. She testified
that the Individual had known when raising the issue of seeking help that being treated for alcohol
could trigger an administrative review process, but the Individual was committed to improving her
mental health. Id. at 17.
The Individual’s daughter testified that she had been concerned about the Individual’s alcohol
consumption prior to the Individual starting treatment. Tr. at 97. She testified that the Individual
had become withdrawn and was pushing her away. Id. She had discussed her concerns with the
Individual, which spurred the Individual to seek treatment for her alcohol use. Id. at 98. Around
the time of this conversation, the Individual’s daughter moved out of the Individual’s house for
unrelated reasons, but she continued to be in close communication with the Individual. As of the
hearing, the daughter was no longer concerned about the Individual, stating that she had “changed
her ways” and was improving her relationships with her family. Id. at 97. She had last seen the
Individual consume alcohol around Christmas 2022, at which time the Individual had one serving
of alcohol. Id. at 98–99. The daughter testified that the Individual was taking sobriety one day at
a time and was focused on the present more than the future. Id. at 99. She testified that there is no
alcohol in the Individual’s home and that the Individual had been attending therapy to address the
underlying causes of her problematic alcohol use. Id. at 100–01. She also testified that she was
-5-
part of the Individual’s support system, and that the Individual would call her or one of her other
children if she was experiencing high anxiety. Id. at 101–02. The daughter described the Individual
as an honest person. Id. at 102.
The Individual testified that her alcohol consumption had not impacted her life professionally or
personally, though she admitted that some family members had commented that they had noticed
the increase in her alcohol consumption and had asked why it had increased. Id. at 20. She testified
that getting help had not all been positive, citing the suspension of her security clearance as a
difficult consequence, but was adamant that it had been worth it. Id. at 25. She testified that she
could have possibly gotten help privately, but honesty was very important to her and she would
not have felt right keeping that information from DOE. Id. at 82.
The Individual’s IOP consisted of classes from 8:00 AM to 3:00 PM five days per week. Tr. at 26.
She attended from September 2022 to October 2022. Id. The program provided individual therapy,
group cognitive behavioral therapy (CBT), sessions focused on coping with stress, and education
about alcohol and substance abuse. Id. at 26–27. It also required attendance twice per week at
group recovery support programs, such as Alcoholics Anonymous or Smart Recovery. Id. at 27.
The Individual attended Smart Recovery meetings twice per week. Id. When identifying herself in
those meetings, she identified herself as an alcoholic. Id. at 66.
The Individual had learned that alcohol is not a coping mechanism, but rather an escape. Tr. at 30.
She had learned that it is OK to ask for help. Id. She testified that she had initially been resistant
to trying therapy again because it had not worked in the past, but she had connected more with her
current therapist, who she began seeing in conjunction with the IOP, than she had with any other
therapist. Id. Through her therapist, the Individual had started two other treatment programs: CBT
and dialectical behavioral therapy (DBT). Id. at 31. As of the hearing, the Individual was not
consistently attending Smart Recovery, but was able to attend meetings as needed. Id. She did not
prefer those meetings because they were exclusively about alcohol, and she was focusing on her
mental health issues more since she was abstinent from alcohol. Id. She also did not like the format
of the meetings because she did not get feedback in those meetings. Id. at 41. She preferred to
attend programs that provided actionable feedback and treatment. Id. at 40–41.
The Individual initially began abstaining from alcohol on September 3, 2022. Tr. at 33–34. After
completing treatment in October of that year, the Individual consumed one glass of wine with a
meal during the winter holidays. Id. at 34; Ex. E. A few weeks later, in January 2023, she consumed
one glass of wine at a celebration, which was the last time she consumed alcohol. Id. at 36. The
Individual reported her lapses to her therapist. Tr. at 49. She testified that, while she knew the
investigation of her eligibility to hold a security clearance had been started, she did not know what
DOE’s expectations were regarding her alcohol consumption after completing the IOP. Id. at 35.
The Individual testified that her IOP had recommended abstinence after completion, but she had
wondered if she could have just one glass of alcohol and be OK. Id. at 34–36. She further testified
that the lapses prompted her to reevaluate her thought patterns using what she had learned in the
IOP; she identified “stinkin’ thinkin’” (rationalizing her decision to try alcohol) and denial. Id. at
37–39. She testified that she finally came to terms with the fact that she could not consume alcohol
in the future and was using the “one day at a time” framework to continue her abstinence. Id. at
37–38. The Individual submitted into evidence two urine tests for alcohol use covering the weeks
-6-
before the hearing, after learning during the administrative review process that urine tests were an
acceptable form of evidence. Ex. C; Ex. I. Both tests produced a result that was negative for the
presence of alcohol. Id.
The Individual did not miss alcohol, did not experience alcohol cravings, and intended to remain
abstinent indefinitely. Tr. at 62. The Individual did not want to be defined by alcohol. Id. at 39.
She testified that during her evaluation by the Psychologist, she realized what DOE’s expectations
were for her, and that was a factor, though not the only factor, in her decision to remain abstinent
indefinitely. Id. at 40. She had not consumed alcohol at family gatherings since January 2023 and
had also not consumed alcohol at her daughter’s recent wedding. Id. at 62–63, 65. She testified
that her daughter had bought non-alcoholic wine so she could participate in the toasts, but she did
not like the taste and stuck to water and soda. Id. at 65. The Individual was not able to undergo
phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing—blood tests recommended by the Psychologist which could
show alcohol use over the preceding three to four weeks—through her insurance provider without
having a work-related injury and could not afford to pay for the tests out-of-pocket, particularly
because she had taken a leave of absence from work to attend the IOP. Id. at 56. She did not attend
Smart Recovery aftercare but attended six weekly sessions of a CBT therapy program. Id. at 40–
41, 57. The Individual’s counseling involved alcohol treatment, and her therapist also trained her
in CBT. Id. at 48, 76. The Individual noted that her IOP had not provided instructions for an
aftercare program. Id. at 32–33.
The Individual testified that pausing to acknowledge and evaluate feelings was a key component
of her anxiety management process. Tr. at 41, 43, 59. She had learned how to recognize the
physical sensations of urgency in her body, which let her know she needed to stop, evaluate what
feelings she was having, and ask what the basis for each feeling was. Id. at 42–44, 59. This allowed
her to gain distance from and perspective on her feelings and prevented her from jumping straight
to the worst-case scenario. Id. at 41–42, 59. She did daily check-ins with herself to identify
stressors and triggers she was feeling and employed her therapeutic techniques consistently to
manage her emotions as they arose. Id. at 44–45.
The Individual had been experiencing panic attacks for about 30 years. Tr. at 23. When having a
panic attack, the Individual experienced feelings of doom, wanting to run, shortness of breath, and
fatigue. Id. She had been in and out of therapy her whole life but at the time her alcohol
consumption increased, she was not seeing a therapist. Id. at 24. The Individual had learned
emotional management skills through her recent treatment programs and ongoing therapy. Id. at
47, 72–73. She had last had a panic attack about three weeks before the hearing, which she
described as mild, that was triggered by stress at work. Id. at 42. She was able to interrupt the panic
attack in its early stages using cognitive skills she had learned and was able to employ positive
coping and self-soothing behaviors, in this case spending time with her dogs, to prevent the panic
attack from becoming severe. Id. at 42-43, 69. She also used breathing exercises to help calm
herself. Id. at 76. The Individual had only had one or two full panic attacks since the beginning of
the year, but it had been months since she last experienced that kind of episode. Id. at 44. She
experienced mild anxiety frequently, but her therapeutic techniques allowed her to consistently
manage and move past those feelings. Id. at 44–45.
-7-
The Individual saw her therapist about twice per month. Tr. at 47. She testified that she would
prefer to see her weekly, but the therapist did not have availability for that. Id. at 46–47. When
starting therapy, the Individual set a treatment goal to be able to control her emotions and anxiety
instead of letting them control her. Id. at 47. She also wanted to stop feeling like a “freak” because
of the stigma she felt from her mental health issues. Id. Her therapy was not focused solely on
substance abuse, but her therapist was a chemical dependency counselor who consistently
promoted and supported abstinence for the Individual as a part of her overall mental health
treatment. Id. at 48. Realizing that anxiety would be a lifelong struggle for her, the Individual’s
current goal was to have more calm days than anxious days. Id. at 45, 48. She had started several
activities that soothed her or channeled her emotions, such as journaling, crafting, and even putting
together Legos. Id. at 48. She found that abstinence from alcohol gave her more time to pursue
those positive activities and rediscover who she was. Id. at 49. She had also learned that alcohol
fueled her anxiety while her anxiety fueled her alcohol use, creating a negative cycle. Id. at 73.
The Individual submitted into evidence a letter from her therapist saying that she participated
appropriately and was doing well in her sessions. Ex. D.
The Individual testified that she had a strong support network. Tr. at 50. She could depend on her
husband, parents, sister-in-law, and children to support her, and she had been fully transparent
about her treatment process with all of them. Id. She had improved her relationship with her
husband since entering therapy and was surprised at how supportive he had been. Id. at 51. She
had learned that her tendency toward people-pleasing had made it difficult for her to set
boundaries, and she had learned to ask herself if tasks or actions would be healthy for her before
doing something for someone else. Id. at 61. The Individual’s husband did not drink, and they did
not keep alcohol in their home. Id. at 51.
The Individual had been prescribed medication to control her anxiety for many years. Tr. at 85.
During the IOP, the Individual had been required to taper off her long-standing prescription. Id. at
25. She transitioned to a new medication regimen and was actively involved in the process of
finding the right medications and doses to best manage her conditions. Id. at 25, 53–54. She had
recently started a planned increase to a full dose of a new medication and credited her current
medication regimen with helping her be able to interrupt her panic attacks so she could employ
her therapeutic techniques. Id. at 52. The Individual took her medications daily as directed. Id. at
54.
After evaluating the Individual in February 2023, the Psychologist had made several
recommendations in her report that would help the Individual demonstrate that she was
rehabilitated or reformed from her AUD, GAD, and MDD:
(1) The Individual should continue her aftercare plan from the IOP or attend weekly Smart
Recovery meetings;
(2) The Individual should demonstrate abstinence for 12 months, supported by monthly PEth
tests;
(3) The Individual should set treatment goals of gaining coping skills to tolerate distress and
regulate emotions, learning to set assertive boundaries, learning problem-solving skills,
and gain a broader range of anxiety management skills;
-8-
(4) The Individual should continue individual therapy for 12 months or until she and her
therapist agree that her treatment goals have been met; and
(5) The Individual should continue taking her medication as prescribed.
Ex. 8 at 5–6.
At the hearing, the Psychologist testified that the Individual had acknowledged the connection
between alcohol and anxiety and that she acknowledged the importance of abstinence for her
anxiety management. Tr. at 122. She testified that the Individual had made significant progress not
just with learning coping skills, but actually practicing them in her life outside of therapy. Id. She
testified that the Individual had learned how to catch negative thinking in real time and address it
appropriately so that she could separate catastrophic thoughts from what was real. Id. She testified
that the Individual had also learned how to calm herself through breathing exercises and taking a
step back before coming back to work on solving the problem. Id. She commended the Individual
for taking the CBT class and encouraged her to work further on DBT, which would further her
distress tolerance, emotional regulation, and relationship and boundary-setting skills. Id. at 122–
23. The Psychologist was pleased to see the Individual working actively with her doctor to make
medication adjustments and testified that the Individual had learned to control her anxiety attacks
much better than before starting treatment. Id. at 123. She was encouraged by the Individual’s
willingness to approach distressing topics and was particularly impressed by the Individual’s
ability to cope with emotions in both emotional and practical ways. Id. at 125. She also
acknowledged that the Individual was learning to tolerate uncertainty and had implemented
problem-solving skills in finding ways to continue her treatment. Id. She stated that the Individual
was “on the right track in terms of the mental health issues.” Id. at 129. She testified that, regarding
GAD and MDD, the Individual was reformed and rehabilitated. Id. at 134.
With regard to the Individual’s AUD, the Psychologist testified that it seemed like her February
2023 meeting with the Individual was a wake-up call that showed the Individual how important
abstinence was. Tr. at 123. She believed the Individual had made progress in building a support
network and that the Individual’s decision not to keep alcohol in her home was positive. Id. at 124.
However, she was concerned that the Individual had not undergone monthly PEth testing. Id. at
125–26. She testified that the Individual’s lack of testing, combined with the Individual’s
insistence on committing to abstinence one day at a time rather than indefinitely, made her question
whether the Individual took her abstinence seriously. The Psychologist testified that this was
connected to the Individual’s decision to “tempt[] fate” by consuming alcohol in December and
January, which she believed showed poor judgment. Id. at 128. She also believed that the
Individual’s resistance to attending Smart Recovery demonstrated that the Individual was avoiding
her alcohol issues to some extent. Id. at 130. She wanted to see the Individual approach alcohol
the way she was approaching other distressing topics. Id. at 131. The Psychologist testified that,
while weekly check-ins about abstinence with a therapist could be helpful, it did not always put a
strong focus on alcohol issues the way a recovery group would. Id. at 154. She also testified that
recovery groups reinforce skills learned in early recovery and provide examples of ways to deal
with different situations that arise in life. Id. at 155.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual had not quite demonstrated rehabilitation or
reformation from her AUD, Moderate. Id. at 135. She based her opinion on the lack of lab testing
-9-
to support the Individual’s claim of abstinence, particularly in light of her decision to drink twice
in the weeks surrounding the winter holidays and new year. Id. at 136–37. She further testified that
it had been about seven months since the Individual’s last stated drink, which would place her in
early—but not sustained—remission. Id. at 136. For that reason, she gave the Individual a guarded
prognosis. Id. The Psychologist testified that she would not be able to give a good prognosis
without laboratory evidence of abstinence, whether through PEth or urine testing. Id. at 136–37,
140, 141–42. She believed (and the Individual confirmed) that the Individual’s urine testing had
been covered by insurance and, if done weekly or bi-weekly, with consistently negative results,
could have led to a good prognosis. Id. at 144–45. She testified that the Individual’s progress on
her mental health issues reflected positively on her prognosis regarding her alcohol issues because
the Individual had learned healthy coping mechanisms she could use instead of turning to alcohol.
Id. at 159. She believed that the progress on overcoming her anxiety and depression would make
the Individual less likely to relapse on alcohol. Id. at 160.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual’s decision to enter treatment demonstrated good
judgment, as did her decision to disclose that to DOE. Tr. at 149. She also believed the Individual’s
decisions to drink around the winter holidays and to not undergo laboratory testing demonstrated
poor decision-making. Id. at 149–50. The Psychologist believed that the Individual’s decision-
making had improved over time and that she was making better decisions as of the hearing date
than she was making in January. Id. at 150–51. She believed that, overall, the Individual was closer
to accepting that laboratory testing was the best way to demonstrate abstinence than she was to
being in denial about her alcohol problem. Id. at 151.
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions that
are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the strong
presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access authorization if
I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that restoring the
Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
A. Guideline G
Conditions that can mitigate Guideline G concerns include:
-10-
(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. Mitigating conditions (b) and (d) apply here.
Regarding the initial elements of condition (b), acknowledgment of her pattern of maladaptive
alcohol use and evidence of actions taken to overcome the problem, the Individual acknowledged
that her drinking was problematic before starting treatment. Indeed, it was her realization that she
had an alcohol problem that led her to seek voluntary treatment in the first place. She identifies as
an alcoholic and has made a conscious choice to remain abstinent indefinitely. She employs
techniques learned in her IOP, such as taking her sobriety one day at a time and using introspection
to find and change thought patterns that lead her back to alcohol.
Regarding the initial element of condition (d), successful completion of a treatment program and
any required aftercare, the Individual completed her IOP and continues to engage in therapy with
a substance abuse counselor. Her therapy sessions address her alcohol issues and help her identify
stressors that could lead to drinking.
Regarding the final element of conditions (b) and (d), demonstration of a clear and established
pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations,
the Individual stated at the hearing that she had not consumed any alcohol in nearly seven months.
She began her sober journey even earlier, nearly 11 months before the hearing. The Individual has
demonstrated a habit of being transparent about her mistakes in the face of potential consequences
as evidenced by her decisions to seek treatment voluntarily, inform her therapist of her alcohol
use, and discuss her struggles and treatment candidly with her daughter. Based on this evidence, I
find that, apart from the two lapses in December and January, the Individual has not consumed
alcohol since September 2022, thereby establishing a clear and established pattern of abstinence
in accordance with treatment recommendations.2
2 Regarding the Individual’s failure to undergo testing to corroborate her assertions of abstinence, the Psychologist’s
report specifically recommended PEth tests—which the Individual stated she could not afford—and did not mention
more frequent urine screenings as an acceptable alternative. Despite this omission, the Individual on her own began
submitting urine tests once she knew they would be accepted to establish a pattern of abstinence.
-11-
The Individual testified that after her lapse in January she finally realized that she wanted to remain
abstinent permanently. I found the Individual’s testimony credible and, for this reason, find that
the Individual’s lapses do not countermand her period of sustained abstinence. Furthermore, it has
been over seven months since the Individual consumed alcohol, during which time the Individual’s
commitment to sobriety has only strengthened, which is in itself evidence of a clear and established
pattern of abstinence.
The Psychologist did not find that the Individual was rehabilitated or reformed from her AUD due
to a lack of laboratory evidence of abstinence; she also questioned the Individual’s commitment
to abstinence. My role, in evaluating the evidence presented in this case, is to determine whether
the government can trust the Individual’s judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. The Individual
has demonstrated rigorous candor to DOE, her treatment team, and her family. She has adequately
attended her treatment appointments and proactively enrolled in continuing treatment classes. She
has also shown that when she makes a mistake, she will promptly report her error and take the
necessary steps to correct it, including introspection to determine why she made the mistake in the
first place. The Individual has demonstrated trustworthiness and reliability through her dedication
to following DOE’s rules and procedures even when she may be personally disadvantaged by
compliance. She has demonstrated good judgment by listening to her daughter’s feedback about
her problematic alcohol use, by taking an active role in her treatment and treatment planning, and
by using her lapses in December and January as learning experiences that enhanced her recovery.
Moreover, the significant progress she has made in overcoming her anxiety and depression, as
attested to by the Psychologist, makes her even less likely to relapse. Thus, notwithstanding the
reservations expressed by the Psychologist, I am confident that the Individual has adequately
addressed DOE’s concerns about her alcohol use.
For these reasons, I find that the security concerns under Guideline G have been mitigated.
B. Guideline I
Conditions that can mitigate Guideline I 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;
(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.
-12-
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29. Mitigating conditions (b), and (c) apply.
Regarding condition (b), the Individual voluntarily entered the IOP, which included mental health
treatment, and continued to work on her anxiety and depression after finishing the program. She
continues to meet with her therapist regularly and voluntarily enrolled in further treatment
programs that focus on ways to interrupt and treat anxious and depressive thought patterns. She is
also adhering to a medication regimen that appears to help her manage her anxiety and depression
on a daily basis. She participates in the prescription process and believes that the medication
improves her mental health. The Psychologist gave her a good prognosis for her mental health
conditions and believed the Individual’s treatment plan was sound.
Regarding condition (c), the Psychologist was contracted by DOE to evaluate the Individual and
gave the Individual a good prognosis. She opined that the Individual was integrating her
therapeutic techniques into her life well and was managing her chronic symptoms appropriately.
She was satisfied with the Individual’s progress in emotional regulation and problem-solving. She
also believed she had the tools to avoid debilitating depression and anxiety in the future.
For these reasons, I find that the security concerns under Guideline I 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 succeeded in fully resolving
those concerns. Therefore, I conclude that restoring 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 restore 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