PSH-23-0126

*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: August 15, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-23-0126
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 8, 2023
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an 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 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 be restored.
I. Background
On November 2, 2022, police were dispatched to the Individual’s home for a domestic dispute.
Ex. 7 at 11. When they arrived, the Individual’s spouse (the Spouse) informed the police that the
Individual had returned home in a state of intoxication, pushed her, and slammed a gate which hit
their baby. Ex. 7 at 11. Later under further questioning, the Spouse stated that the Individual had
“pushed her a few times in front of the children.” Ex. 7 at 11. Police further reported:
[The Spouse] said she was up in her bedroom getting the children ready for bed.
[The Individual] came into the room and started yelling at her and arguing. She told
him to leave the room multiple times but he did not. She said [the Individual] then
began pushing her, trying to intimidate her. She did not want it to escalate to
physical violence so she told him she was calling the police. She then called 911
and [the Individual] left and went downstairs.
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-
Ex. 7 at 11. The police also questioned two of the Individual and Spouse’s three children.2 Ex. 7
at 11. One of the children reported that she had observed her parents arguing and that she had
observed the Individual push her mother several times. Ex. 7 at 11. Another child reported that
she heard her parents arguing and that the Individual “hit” her mother. Ex. 7 at 11.
The police found the Individual asleep on the steps. Ex. 7 at 11. The police then awakened the
Individual and questioned him. Ex. 7 at 11. The police reported that the Individual was “unsteady
on his feet when he stood up” and “was slurring his words and had watery, bloodshot eyes.” Ex.
7 at 11. The Individual informed the police that he and the Spouse were going through a divorce
and had been arguing over money. Ex. 7 at 11. The Individual told the police that “he did not hit,
push, or shove” the Spouse. Ex. 7 at 11. The Individual informed the police that he had consumed
about six shots of alcohol while at his house. Ex. 7 at 11. The police arrested the Individual and
administered a breath alcohol test to him which indicated that his Breath Alcohol Concentration
(BAC) was .308 g/210L.
The Individual reported this incident (the Incident) to a Local Security Office (LSO) on November
7, 2022. Ex. 11 at 1. In his report of the Incident to the LSO, the Individual stated he had been
“[c]harged with misdemeanor harassment.” Ex. 11 at 1. An “Offense/Incident Report” prepared
by the police on November 7, 2022, reports that the Individual had been charged with “Domestic
Violence” and “Harassment - Strike/Shove/Kick.” Ex. 7 at 7.
As a result of the Incident, the Individual’s local Department of Human/Social Services (DHSS)
“conducted an assessment of child abuse and/or neglect.” Ex. 6 at 2. On December 21, 2022,
DHSS issued a “Notice of Founded Finding” (NFF) in which it found “[T]he allegation has been
confirmed. . . .” Ex. 6 at 2. The NNF further stated that the Individual was “identified as the
person responsible for the incident of child abuse or neglect . . . .” Ex. 6 at 2.
The LSO subsequently issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual. Ex. 12. The
Individual submitted his response to this LOI on February 10, 2023. Ex. 12 at 20. In his response,
the Individual reported that he had:
pled guilty to a plea deal offered by the district attorney for deferred sentencing
which entails mandatory DV education classes that typically last nine months,
probation of 18 months with the possibility of termination following completion of
DV education classes, and completion of drug/alcohol education classes.
Following successful completion of these requirements the charges will be
withdrawn, and I can have the court seal the record.
Ex. 12 at 1. The Individual reported that he was placed on probation as a result of his plea deal.
Ex. 12 at 2, 4. Under the terms of his probation, he was required to avoid possession or
consumption of alcohol. Ex. 12 at 4. When asked to describe the Incident the Individual responded
by stating in part:
Later [that] evening, the fighting continued, and at one point I went upstairs into
our bedroom. She threatened to call the cops on me if I did not go back downstairs.
2 The third child was an infant.
-3-
I laughed at the idea of the cops being called, basically daring her to do so, for being
in my own bedroom in my own house. She eventually did call the cops on me for
not leaving the bedroom. Once she called the cops, I left and went into the garage
to watch TV. When I left for downstairs, I shut the baby gate forcefully and it fell
over; the baby gate was not properly secured to the wall. When the cops arrived,
they woke me up; I had fallen asleep. They asked me what was going on tonight. I
explained that we had been arguing over financial stuff on and off throughout the
day. The cops asked me if I touched her and [ I said] no. The incident was verbal.
My wife told the officer I pushed her several times; she also explained that she
called so that things did not escalate. She later redacted the pushing statement in
front of a judge at my 1st court hearing.3 She told the judge that I touched her with
my finger while arguing. The officer separated and interviewed my kids. [One of
my children], 6, told the officer that she witnessed me touching or pushing my wife,
and [another of my children], 4, told the officer that I hit my wife. At that point, the
officer handcuffed me, and I was escorted to his patrol car peacefully. The officer
drove me to a local hospital because of my high breathalyzer test result.
Ex. 12 at 1–2. In his response to the LOI, the Individual repeatedly denied striking, kicking, or
shoving the Spouse, but admitted to touching the Spouse with his finger while arguing. Ex. 12 at
2. The Individual was unsure of the amount of alcohol he consumed prior to the Incident. Ex. 12
at 2. He admitted he consumed an excessive amount of alcohol and was intoxicated during the
Incident. Ex. 12 at 2–3.
The Individual reported that he had begun an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) for alcohol
treatment on the advice of his criminal defense attorney. Ex. 12 at 3–5, 14. The Individual also
reported that he had received group counseling for alcohol issues during the period from November
8, 2022, to November 14, 2022. Ex. 12 at 14. The Individual further reported that he was being
treated by a psychologist and a psychiatrist. Ex. 12 at 4. The Individual admitted that he had been
charged with “Unlawful Purchase or Possession of Alcoholic Beverage” on October 17, 2003,
when he was 20 years old. Ex. 12 at 5. The Individual also admitted that he was arrested and
charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) in December 2003. Ex. 12 at 6. The Individual
admitted that he had been issued a citation for Underage Possession of Alcohol in August 2004.
Ex. 12 at 7. The Individual admitted that he had developed a high tolerance to alcohol during the
Covid-19 lockdown. Ex. 12 at 10. The Individual reported that in November 2021, he realized
that his alcohol use had become problematic and had abstained from alcohol use from November
8, 2021, to July 22, 2022. Ex. 12 at 11. The Individual further stated: “Between ~ 07/22 to 11/2/23,
I thought my bad relationship with heavy drinking was over. I thought a balance was manageable
for not being strictly sober and consuming alcohol responsibly. This was obviously a mistake in
judgement.” Ex. 12 at 11. He reported that his last use of alcohol occurred on January 9, 2023.
Ex. 12 at 12. The Individual further admitted that his alcohol use had caused problems with his
family and his employer, had negatively affected his health, and that he had experienced
withdrawal symptoms. Ex. 12 at 12. The Individual admitted that he has a problem with alcohol.
Ex. 12 at 13–14.
3 I believe the Individual meant to say “retracted” instead of “redacted.”
-4-
After receiving the Individual’s response to the LOI, the LSO requested that he undergo an
evaluation by a DOE-contracted psychologist (Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview
(CI) of the Individual on April 7, 2023. Ex. 13 at 1. The Psychologist’s review of the Individual’s
treatment records indicated that he had previously been hospitalized for alcohol detoxification
from December 8, 2021, to December 14, 2021, and had been taken to a hospital emergency room
for treatment of alcohol-induced symptoms in early December 2021. Ex. 13 at 3–4. The treatment
records further showed that the Individual’s employer required that he undergo a Fitness for Duty
Evaluation (FFD) after his hospitalization. Ex. 13 at 4. The treatment records further showed that
that the Spouse had called the police on at least four occasions when she and the Individual had
been arguing. Ex. 13 at 4. The FFD required the Individual to abstain from all alcohol use. Ex.
13 at 4. During the FFD, the Individual was administered four Phosphatidyl ethanol (PEth) tests.
On January 12, 2022, the Individual tested positive at 54 ng/nl, and on January 28, 2022, March
7, 2022, and April 21, 2022, the Individual tested negative. The treatment records indicated that
the IOP’s staff had diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe (AUD). Ex. 13
at 5. The Individual’s IOP was still ongoing at the time of the CI. Ex. 13 at 5. The Individual
recognized that he cannot “drink responsibly.” Ex. 13 at 7. The Individual also reported that he
last used alcohol on January 9, 2023. Ex. 13 at 4.
After considering all the information available to her, the Psychologist issued a report (the Report)
on April 15, 2023, in which she concluded that the Individual met the criteria set forth in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual 5-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) for Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe
(AUD) in Early Remission.4 Ex. 13 at 7. The Psychologist further opined that:
[the Individual] is on a good path toward rehabilitation/reformation. He is in an
Intensive Outpatient Program which he will complete within one month. Following
that, [the Individual] should continue in their Aftercare program, to include at least
one group and one individual session per week, augmented by additional AA or
other peer-support group meetings once or twice weekly. He should resume PEth
testing every four to six weeks, which will buttress his abstinence from alcohol as
well as provide objective and scientific evidence of his sobriety. This participation
in treatment and support should continue for 12 months, as of the beginning of his
IOP on 01/18/2023. [The Individual] should abstain from alcohol for his lifetime.
Ex. 13 at 7.
After receiving the Report, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing
a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual submitted a response to the Notification Letter in which he requested a hearing.
The LSO forwarded his response 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), I heard testimony from three witnesses: the Individual, the
Spouse, and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-23-0126 (hereinafter cited
-5-
as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 15 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 15. The Individual
submitted 29 exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through ZZ.
Exhibit A is the Individual’s response to the Statement of Security Concerns (SSC) appended to
the Notification Letter.
Exhibit AA is an updated version of the Individual’s response to the SSC.
Exhibit B is a copy of the Individual’s response to the LOI that he submitted on February 10, 2023.
Exhibit C is a copy of the Psychologist’s Report discussed above.
Exhibit D is a letter dated July 10, 2023, to Whom It May Concern from the Individual’s probation
officer (PO) indicating that the Individual was in compliance with the terms of his probation. The
PO indicated that the Individual was “currently enrolled in his Court ordered Domestic Violence
treatment and is submitting drug and alcohol tests as required with clean results.” Ex. D at 1.
Exhibit E is a letter dated October 17, 2023, to Whom It May Concern from the Individual’s
probation officer (PO) indicating that the Individual was in compliance with the terms of his
probation. The PO indicated that the Individual was “currently enrolled in his Court ordered
Domestic Violence treatment and is submitting drug and alcohol tests as required with clean
results.” Ex. E at 1.
Exhibits F, G, H, I, J, and K are laboratory reports for six PEth tests administered to the Individual
on May 5, 2023; June 16, 2023; July 21, 2023, August 25, 2023; September 29, 2023; and October
6, 2023. Each of these tests were negative.
Exhibit L is a letter dated January 25, 2023, to Whom It May Concern from the executive Director
of the Individual’s IOP indicating that the Individual had started attending that program.
Exhibit M is a Completion Certificate indicating that the Individual had successfully completed
the IOP on May 4, 2023.
Exhibit N is an unaddressed memo, dated July 19, 2023, from the Individual’s treating
psychologist. It states that the Individual:
[H]as been receiving treatment related to his arrest, 11/2/22. Treatment has been
weekly for one-hour sessions on the dates listed below. Treatment was paused
between February to July 2023 due to the patient attending individual therapy while
enrolled in a IOP . . . . The patient resumed treatment, 7/5/23, when notified of
guidance from a psychological evaluation for re-establishing a security clearance
with the Department of Energy (DOE)/National Nuclear Security Administration
(NNSA).
Ex. N at 1.
-6-
Ex. O is essentially the same document as Exhibit N only with the date updated to October 18,
2023.
Ex. OO is similar to Exhibits N and O with additional progress notes by a psychologist who had
been treating the Individual in which she states that the Individual has “exhibited remarkable
growth and resilience.” Ex. OO at 1.
Ex. P is list of Aftercare weekly meetings that Individual attended from July 25, 2023, through
October 17, 2023.
Exhibit Q is an undated letter to Whom It May Concern from a licensed professional counselor
(LPC) providing Domestic Violence treatment to the Individual. The letter indicates that the
Individual has attended 19 group sessions and one Individual session. Ex. Q at 1. The LPC stated
that the Individual “seems to be within compliance as evidenced by his consistent attendance,
appears to be taking notes during group, and engagement in small group discussions.” Ex. Q at 1.
Exhibit R is an unsigned, undated, typewritten note from the LPC indicating that she had met
individually with the Individual on June 30, 2023, July 21, 2023, and August 21, 2023.
Exhibit S is an undated letter to Whom It May Concern from the LPC in which she stated that the
Individual “completed his Domestic Violence groups and appeared to demonstrate the
requirements such as accountability, engagement in the group discussions, and increased insight
to his own behavioral patterns.” Ex. S at 1.
Exhibits T, V, and W consist of contact information for personal references.
Exhibit U is a personal reference letter, dated July 13, 2023, from the Individual’s manager to
Whom It May Concern in which she states that the Individual is an exemplary employee who
exhibits outstanding character while in the workplace.
Exhibit X is a copy of the Individual’s “Domestic Violence Personal Change Plan.”
Exhibit Y is a copy of the Individual’s FFD closure letter, dated June 1, 2023, indicating that he
had successfully completed the FFD Evaluation process.
Exhibit Z is the Individual’s witness list.
Exhibit ZZ is an updated version of the Individual’s witness list.
II. The Notification Letter and the Associated Security Concerns
The SSC informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guidelines G (Alcohol
Consumption), and J (Criminal Activity) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
-7-
Under Guideline G, the LSO cites the Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual meets the
DSM-5-TR’s criteria for AUD, Severe, and the Individual’s alcohol-related Domestic Violence
arrest. This information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. Under
Guideline G, “[e]xcessive 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. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, fighting, . . . 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”; and a “diagnosis by a duly
qualified . . . clinical psychologist . . . of alcohol disorder.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a) and
(d).
Under Guideline J, the LSO cites the Individual’s Domestic Violence arrest and the DHSS’s
conclusion that the Individual was responsible for an incident of child abuse or neglect. These
allegations adequately justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J. The Adjudicative Guidelines
state: “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. Among those conditions set forth in the
Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern is “[e]vidence (including, but not
limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 31(b).
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 regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. 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.
-8-
IV. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Spouse testified that she had not observed the Individual consume alcohol since
November 2, 2022. Tr. at 14. She believes that January 9, 2023, is the Individual’s sobriety date.
Tr. at 17. She testified that the Individual has changed; they are now able to communicate; and he
has become a fantastic father. Tr. at 17–18. Their marriage is now strong, and they communicate
wonderfully. Tr. at 18. She believes that the Incident would not have happened if the Individual
had not been intoxicated. Tr. at 18. She testified that the Individual does not have a history of
domestic violence. Tr. at 19. She further testified that she had not observed him acting in a manner
that raised concern for the wellbeing or safety of their children, other than the night when the
Individual was “yelling in front of them.” Tr. at 19. The Covid lockdown was hard on her
relationship with the Individual. Tr. at 21. The Spouse indicated that the Individual is no longer
using alcohol. Tr. at 24. Their communication is now improved. Tr. at 24. She reported that
when the police had been called to their home on several occasions prior to the Incident, it was
because “some people who wanted to see our marriage fail” had called them. Tr. at 25. On
November 2, 2022, she noticed that the Individual was intoxicated when they began to argue. Tr.
at 29. She testified that she “jumped the gun and called the police” because she was frustrated
with the Individual. Tr. at 29. When the Spouse was asked if any physical contact occurred
between the Individual and herself during the Incident she testified: “I mean no physical contact.
He put his finger on me. That was it. Just like this, very delicately. That was the only contact we
had.” Tr. at 30. When she was asked why the Individual was arrested that night she stated: “they
told me that the reason why they were taking him in and giving him the domestic violence
harassment is for how long we’ve actually been together, is what they told me.” Tr. at 30. She
also indicated that the police did not want to leave the Individual at their home because of the level
of his alcohol intoxication. Tr. at 30. She thought he was continuing to use alcohol in the weeks
after the Incident. Tr. at 31. At some point, the Individual failed a urine screening for alcohol.
Tr. at 32. She believes that the therapy and domestic violence classes have “given him the tools
to really change and become a better father, better husband.” Tr. at 33. They no longer keep
alcohol in their home or socialize in the company of others using alcohol. Tr. at 33–34. The
Individual is participating in AA, which he attends online. Tr. at 34, 36. She thinks he has a
sponsor. Tr. at 36. She and the Individual are communicating and “have really fixed our marriage.”
Tr. at 34. The Individual told her that he is going to permanently abstain from alcohol use. Tr. at
37. She testified that she did not press charges against the Individual and had asked the prosecutor
to drop the charges against the Individual. Tr. at 44, 49. She and her children were interviewed
by a social worker about the Incident. Tr. at 45. She testified that the Individual never hit her in
her face and that he did not push her. Tr. at 48. She stated that she testified in front of a judge that
he had not pushed her. Tr. at 48–49. She claimed that she had not told the police that the Individual
had pushed her. Tr. at 49.
The Individual testified that he remains committed to his sobriety and remains in compliance with
the terms of his probation. Tr. at 55. His last use of alcohol occurred on January 9, 2023. Tr. at
84. He is subject to random ethel glucuronide (EtG) tests. Tr. at 55. He testified that he has never
had a positive EtG test while on probation. Tr. at 55. He noted that he has taken seven PEth tests
since April 2023 and that each has been negative. Tr. at 57. He completed the IOP in May 2023.
Tr. at 57–58. He has been receiving individual counseling. Tr. at 58. He admitted that during the
Covid lockdown his drinking had become a problem and needed to be addressed. Tr. at 64. He
-9-
voluntarily admitted himself to a detoxification facility in late 2021. Tr. at 64–65. He had
developed a tolerance to alcohol and was drinking 15 to 20 shots a day at one point. Tr. at 65. He
visited the emergency room in October 2021 for alcohol-induced symptoms. Tr. at 65. He stopped
using alcohol after his detoxification but restarted using alcohol in July 2022. Tr. at 67. He
testified that, in July 2022, he thought he “could have a moderate relationship with alcohol.” Tr.
at 67. He testified that he was able to consume alcohol in moderation until November 2, 2022.
Tr. at 68. He claimed that the Spouse’s friends had urged her to call the police every time they
had an argument. Tr. at 69. At the time of the Incident, the Spouse had wanted a divorce. Tr. at
69. He testified that the Spouse “told [the police] that I pushed her.” Tr. at 69. He further testified
that the police had isolated their children and that one child stated he had hit the Spouse in her face
and the other child stated he had pushed the Spouse. Tr. at 69–70. He denied pushing or shoving
the Spouse. Tr. at 70. He admitted that the children were present and able to observe the Incident.
Tr. at 70. When the Individual was asked if he had touched the Spouse during the Incident, he
claimed he “touched her with my finger, like this one time.” Tr. at 70–71. He consumed some
alcohol between the Incident and the IOP. Tr. at 72. He tested positive for alcohol on a pretrial
drug test. Tr. at 73, 88. He attended the IOP on the advice of counsel. Tr. at 73. He has been
attending Aftercare since July 27, 2023, after receiving a copy of the Report. Tr. at 74. He has
resumed individual counseling, which he plans to continue “until these matters have been
resolved.” Tr. at 78. He began attending AA meetings sporadically after detoxification. Tr. at
79–80. He is not working the Twelve-Steps and does not have an AA sponsor. Tr. at 79. He
completed his Domestic Violence classes. Tr. at 81–82. In his Domestic Violence classes, he
learned assertive communication skills that help him better manage conflicts with the Spouse. Tr.
at 82. The IOP helped the Individual realize that he can’t safely use alcohol in moderation. Tr. at
83. He testified that he realizes the detrimental impact that his alcohol use has had on his life and
now wants “nothing to do with it.” Tr. at 83–84. He plans to permanently abstain from alcohol
use. Tr. at 84. The Individual identified his Aftercare group as his support network. Tr. at 85–86.
He no longer feels the urge to use alcohol. Tr. at 87. He has a relapse prevention program. Tr. at
88.
The Psychologist testified that she had diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, in Early
Remission. Tr. at 93. Nothing in the Individual’s treatment records that the Psychologist reviewed
indicated that he is a violent man. Tr. at 93. She testified that the Individual has embraced the
rehabilitation process and has demonstrated “a definite understanding of what his problems have
been and as well as good insight and understanding of – of how to treat – how to keep that issue
at bay, which is the underlying commitment to lifelong abstinence.” Tr. at 94. She opined that
the steps that the Individual has taken are sufficient to address his AUD, Severe. Tr. at 95–96.
She believes that the Individual has taken full responsibility for the Incident. Tr. at 96. She
believes that the Individual is rehabilitated from his AUD, Severe, and has a good prognosis. Tr.
at 97–98. She opined that alcohol was the causative factor leading to the Incident, noting that the
Individual does not have any other history of violence. Tr. at 98. The Psychologist believes that
ten months of sobriety and treatment are sufficient to show that the Individual is rehabilitated. Tr.
at 98. The Psychologist characterized the Individual’s BAC level at the time of the Incident .3 as
a “extremely high, dangerously high” level, noting that at that level, an individual has almost no
inhibitions or judgment. Tr. at 100–101.
-10-
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
The Individual has a long history of alcohol problems, dating back to at least 2003-2004, when he
had three alcohol-related arrests, continuing through December 2021, when he was hospitalized
for alcohol detoxification, and had an emergency room visit for alcohol-induced symptoms, and
up through the date of the November 2022 Incident. Moreover, the Individual has a history of
relapsing after abstaining from all alcohol use from December 2021 until July 2022. Nevertheless,
the Individual has, for the first time, attended an IOP and begun receiving individual counseling
and psychiatric treatment. Having completed the IOP, he is now regularly attending Aftercare and
appears to have greatly improved his relationship with the Spouse. These factors, along with the
Individual’s well documented abstinence from alcohol use for the past ten months, and the opinion
of the Psychologist that he has been rehabilitated from his AUD, Severe, have led me to conclude
that the security concerns arising under Guideline G have been resolved.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G, three of which are present in the instant case. First, the Adjudicative Guidelines
provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline G if they can show “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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a). In the present case,
the Individual has shown that he has abstained from alcohol use for ten months, which is a
sufficient period to demonstrate that his AUD has been resolved and that his alcohol consumption
is unlikely to recur, especially in light of his PEth testing program, successful completion of the
IOP, Aftercare attendance, and the Psychologist’s conclusion that he has been rehabilitated.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(a).
Second, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline G if “[t]he 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b). In the present case, the Individual has
acknowledged his AUD and has provided evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem.
Moreover, as discussed above, the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
abstinence from alcohol for the past ten months. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has
satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(b).
Third, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G if “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(d).
As noted above, the Individual has successfully completed the IOP, participates in Aftercare, and
has demonstrated his abstinence from alcohol use through the submission of negative PEth test
results. Accordingly, he has established a pattern of abstinence from alcohol, given that he has
-11-
shown that he has been abstaining from alcohol use for ten months. Accordingly, I find that the
Individual has satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(d).
I therefore find that the security concerns raised by the LSO under Guideline G have been resolved.
B. Guideline J
The Individual’s criminal activity was clearly symptomatic of his AUD. Because the Individual
has shown that his recovery from his AUD can be sustained, I am convinced that the risk that the
Individual will engage in future criminal activity is minimal.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four conditions that can mitigate security concerns arising
under Guideline J, two of which are relevant to the present case. First, an individual may mitigate
security concerns under Guideline J if they can show that “so much time has elapsed since the
criminal behavior happened, or it happened under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely
to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(a). In the present case, the Individual has shown that the Incident
was a consequence of his AUD, Severe, which was a circumstance that is no longer present. Since
I have found that the Individual’s AUD was the root cause of his alcohol-related criminal activity,
I find that his rehabilitation indicates that his criminal activity is unlikely to recur. In the present
case, the Individual’s successful rehabilitation from his AUD shows that the mitigating condition
set forth in ¶ 32(a) is present.
Second, an individual may also mitigate security concerns under Guideline J if “[t]here is evidence
of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the passage of time without recurrence
of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with the terms of parole or probation, job training or
higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(d). In the present case, the passage of time without the recurrence
of further criminal activity, the Individual’s compliance with his probation requirements, and his
successful AUD rehabilitation show that the mitigating condition set forth in ¶ 32(d) is present.
I therefore find that the security concerns raised under Guideline J by the Individual’s criminal
activity have been resolved.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and J.
After considering all of the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner,
I find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines G and J.
Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not
endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
-12-
Therefore, the Individual’s security clearance should be restored. This Decision may be appealed
in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals