PSH-23-0107

*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: July 18, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0107
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 13, 2024
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 that requires a security clearance.
Derogatory information regarding the Individual’s alcohol consumption was discovered. 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 three witnesses—her sister, a close friend, and a human
resources employee from her facility—and testified on her own behalf. The LSO presented the
testimony of the DOE psychologist who had evaluated the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing,
Case No. PSH-23-0107 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted eight exhibits, marked as
Exhibits 1 through 8 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted five exhibits, marked
as Exhibits A through D and Exhibit A Supplement.
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 Guideline G 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.
The LSO alleges that the Individual admitted to drinking alcohol to intoxication two or three times
per month for most of her adult life. The LSO further alleges that a DOE Consultant Psychologist
(the Psychologist) diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate severity, in early
remission but without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Accordingly, the LSO’s
security concerns under Guideline G are justified.
3
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
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. Id.
§ 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 began working at the DOE facility late in 2018. Tr. at 10. She testified that she
experienced threats and hostility from some employees at the facility, which caused her some
stress. Id. at 13. She had difficulty with failing to maintain boundaries to prevent being
overcommitted. Id. at 39. Typically, she would drink one or two domestic beers with friends on
her days off and one or two domestic beers during an occasional happy hour with colleagues. Id.
at 16–17. She began drinking one to two vodka drinks instead of domestic beers in 2019 because
she felt she became more relaxed from vodka. Id. at 19. She also began drinking one to two drinks
on some weeknights. Id. at 20. She testified that she drank, in part, to deal with workplace stress.
Id. Her drinking increased progressively during the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 21. In 2022, the
Individual lost a tooth and developed a gum infection. Id. at 23–25. She began drinking every
evening to deal with the pain in addition to her work stress. Id. at 29–30.
In early September 2022, the Individual’s supervisor noticed her slurring her speech and referred
her to medical for an alcohol test, which she failed. Tr. at 33. The Individual had consumed several
drinks the night before and had intended to use a sick day but woke up feeling “fine” and decided
to report to work as usual. Id. at 32. At work, her Blood Alcohol Concentration was around 0.24%.
Id. at 33. The following day, the Individual met with her doctor to discuss options for alcohol
4
treatment. Id. at 34–35. She agreed to go to a detox facility and her sister took her there the
following day. Id. 35–36.
The Individual began participating in the detox facility’s recovery program on her first day. Tr. at
36. The program involved several hours of classes each day. Id. The Individual requested to stay
at the inpatient treatment center for a full 30-day program after completing her seven-day detox
because she wanted to “really get everything [she] could out of what the program had to offer.” Id.
at 44. She began sleeping and eating better, began feeling physically and mentally stronger, and
gained clarity. Id. at 46. She attended recovery classes eight hours per day, seven days per week,
covering issues such as trauma, behaviors, and coping skills. Id. at 46, 48. Activities outside the
daily classes also tended to be recovery oriented, such as meditation and group activities. Id. at
46–47. She also completed homework assignments outside of classes that allowed her to focus on
herself and her personal recovery needs. Id. at 47.
The Individual entered an Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP) as soon as she left the
inpatient treatment facility. Id. at 55. The program began with three weeks of half-day classes
before a second phase consisting of several weeks of daily group and individual therapy and all-
day classes. Id. at 57–58. When the program ended in December 2022, the Individual returned to
work. Id. at 63. She was somewhat apprehensive about returning to work, not because she worried
that she would drink, but because she worried that she would fall back into her old patterns of
people pleasing and not holding her boundaries. Id. at 60–61. When she did return, she found
herself stronger than before and with more clarity. Id. at 63. She felt ready for her transition back
to work. Id. She incorporated into her life the lessons and skills she learned in her treatment
programs. Id. at 64–66. She also participated in an early recovery aftercare program that met twice
per week after work for about four months. Id. at 66–67; Ex. D at 3. She continued participating
in a long-term recovery program once per week after she finished the early recovery program. Tr.
at 68; Ex. D at 3. She also attended individual therapy through work. Tr. at 69. The Individual was
tested randomly at work for drugs and alcohol twice monthly and, starting in late September 2023,
had completed four monthly PEth tests. Id. at 70–72. About two weeks before she started doing
the PEth tests, she also did a hair follicle test to show that she had not consumed alcohol for the
three months prior to the first PEth test. Id. at 72–73. All the tests returned a negative result. Id. at
71–73; Ex. A at 3–18; Ex. A Supplement; Ex. B; Ex. C.
In March 2023, the Individual underwent an evaluation by the Psychologist and was diagnosed
with Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate severity, in early remission. Ex. 6 at 7. The Psychologist, in
her report of the evaluation, recommended that, for the Individual to show rehabilitation or
reformation, she should abstain from alcohol for a year, complete her early recovery program, and
attend weekly meetings through Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Life Ring, or her recovery
program’s drop-in recovery meetings. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that she had been abstinent from alcohol for 528 days, since
September 2022, and that she intended to remain abstinent permanently. Tr. at 69–70. She testified
that alcohol was harmful to her health and wellbeing and that she did not want it to control her life.
Id. at 70. The Individual testified that she should have asked for help before letting her alcohol
problem progress as far as it did and that her tendency to be a “people pleaser” had led her to
neglect her own care. Id. at 38–39. She testified that she was continuing to set boundaries at work
5
and in her personal life and had learned several coping mechanisms. Id. at 40, 48. She had a list of
people she could call at any time if she needed help or support. Id. at 48–49. She had learned
methods like tapping on her legs or touching her fingertips together that helped her get through
triggers. Id. at 49. She was also addressing past trauma and dealing with emotions she had
suppressed. Id. at 49–50, 54.
The Individual’s sister testified that she saw the Individual several times per week and spoke to
her almost daily. Tr. at 82–83. The sister testified that since returning home from the inpatient
treatment program, the Individual was “doing fantastic.” Id. at 77. She testified that the Individual
had regained weight, was looking healthier, and was proud of her sobriety. Id. She testified that
the Individual was attending group therapy support meetings and was pursuing drawing, which the
Individual found relaxing. Id. She testified that the Individual spent her social time with friends
who also did not consume alcohol, some of whom started abstaining with the Individual. Id. at 77,
84. The sister testified that the Individual was maintaining a rich social life without alcohol. Id. at
84. She further testified that the Individual was successfully managing her work stress and was a
better version of herself than she was two years ago. Id. at 79. She believed that the Individual was
dedicated to remaining abstinent from alcohol. Id. at 80.
The Individual’s friend had known her for about 20 years. Tr. at 93–94. They saw each other a few
times per month and spoke on the phone together about two times per week. Id. at 94. She testified
that the Individual was doing well in her recovery and was thriving. Id. at 94–95. She further
testified that the Individual was “extremely dedicated” to abstaining from alcohol and had been
sober for about 18 months. Id. at 95.
The Human Resources employee worked with the Individual’s supervisor and had attended work-
related social functions with the Individual. Tr. at 99. She saw the Individual almost every day at
work. Id. at 101. She confirmed that none the Individual’s random drug and alcohol screenings
had returned a positive result.2 Id. at 105. She testified that based on her experience with her, the
Individual had taken accountability for her actions, was performing at a very high level at work,
and had grown in her sobriety. Id. at 103–05.
The Psychologist testified that, based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the
Individual was rehabilitated and that she had confidence in the Individual’s ability to maintain her
abstinence. Tr. at 111. She testified that the Individual had demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of abstinence and was making satisfactory progress with her treatment. Id. at 112. She
further testified that the Individual had met the aftercare (post-treatment ongoing support)
requirements for the treatment programs she has completed. Id. The Psychologist gave the
Individual a good prognosis. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
2 The Human Resources employee testified that she would have been notified if a screening returned a positive result.
Tr. at 104–05. She testified that she had not been notified of a positive screening for the Individual. Id. at 105.
6
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.
Conditions that can mitigate Guideline G 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. The Individual has established mitigation under conditions (b),
(c), and (d).
Regarding conditions (b) and (d), the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern
of abstinence through evidence and testimony that demonstrates that she has abstained from
alcohol for over eighteen months. Her testimony is supported by alcohol testing extending back to
June 2023, three months before the date of her hair follicle test. Ex. D. The Psychologist also
testified that she had demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence. The Individual
presented evidence that she had completed two treatment programs, an inpatient program and an
IOP, and an early recovery aftercare program and that she was continuing to attend long-term
7
aftercare meetings as recommended by the Psychologist. Moreover, in regard to condition (b), the
Individual acknowledged her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use by identifying ways that alcohol
had hurt her, as well as past experiences that had contributed to her unhealthy alcohol use.
Regarding condition (c), the Individual has no history of treatment and relapse and has made
progress in her treatment sufficient for the Psychologist to opine that she is rehabilitated.
The Individual sought treatment immediately after testing positive for alcohol at work and has
been proactive in her treatment since then. She is dedicated to maintaining her sobriety because
she recognizes that her life is better without alcohol. She has also pursued treatment to discover
and heal the underlying causes of her substance abuse and has incorporated what she has learned
into her daily life. The Individual displayed trustworthiness, reliability, and good judgment by
taking accountability for her actions, taking immediate steps to resolve the problem, and making
lasting changes in her life to support long-term appropriate behavior.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G concerns.
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 Guideline G 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