PSH-24-0003

*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: October 11, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0003
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 9, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires possession of a security
clearance. In May 2023, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) learned from the Individual that he
was hospitalized that same month for alcohol withdrawal symptoms. The LSO requested that the
Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychologist (Psychologist). Afterward, the LSO
informed the Individual by letter (Notification Letter) that it possessed reliable information that
created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance. In an attachment
to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative
Guidelines.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
- 2 -
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of four witnesses and testified on
his own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the Psychologist. The Individual submitted
seventeen exhibits, marked Exhibits A through Q.2 The LSO submitted nine exhibits, marked
Exhibits 1 through 9.3
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines as the basis for concern regarding the Individual’s eligibility to possess a security
clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1. Guideline G provides that “[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. Conditions
that could raise a security concern include “[a]lcohol-related incidents away from work, such as
driving while under the influence[,] . . .” and “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental
health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use disorder
. . . .” Id. at ¶ 22(a) and (d). The SSC cited that in July 2023 the Psychologist concluded that the
Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, criteria
for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, and, in 2012, law enforcement arrested and charged the
Individual with Driving Under the Influence of Liquor (DUI). Ex. 1 at 5. The cited information
justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all 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 or her 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. Id.
2 The Individual’s exhibits are composed of several .pdf workbooks. References to these exhibits are to the exhibit
letter and the page number of that particular exhibit’s pages as if the exhibit is a standalone .pdf. Exhibits P and Q
were submitted on the hearing date under different labels; however, they are now consistent with the labeling of the
Individual’s other exhibits.
3 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top, right corner of
each exhibit page.
- 3 -
§ 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
On May 18, 2023, the Individual reported to DOE that he received inpatient treatment at a hospital
from May 12 to May 14 after experiencing vertigo symptoms. Ex. 5 at 18. He disclosed in the
same incident report that he had been regularly consuming alcohol at the rate of eight “shots” in
one “sitting” and that, as a result of his hospitalization, he intended to go through his employer’s
rehabilitation program “with the goal of not using alcohol.” Id. According to the Psychologist who
evaluated the Individual and provided a subsequent report (Report) to the LSO, the Individual
stated that the hospital treated him for alcohol withdrawal. Ex. 6 at 22.
During the evaluation, the Individual reported his alcohol use history. The Individual stated that
he was arrested and charged with DUI in 2012 when he was in his mid-twenties. Id. at 23. He
reported that he had several drinks at a bar with a friend and was stopped by law enforcement. Id.
The Individual pled guilty to the charges and was court-ordered to attend alcohol education classes
and satisfy other requirements, which he successfully completed. Id. Turning to more recent
events, the Individual stated that, during the Covid-19 pandemic, he was newly divorced and
working a stressful job, and his alcohol use gradually increased from a few times a week to every
day. Id. at 23. By the end of 2021, he was consuming three to four alcoholic beverages every day,
and he noticed that his tolerance had increased. Id. The Psychologist reported that the Individual
eventually realized that he was attempting to “manage psychosocial stressors in his life” by using
alcohol, and the Individual became concerned in spring of 2023 that his “excessive alcohol use
was going to negatively impact his job because he wasn’t functioning effectively at work.” Id. at
24. The Individual decided to stop consuming alcohol on May 11, 2023, he consequently fell ill,
and his fiancée transported him to the hospital where he received treatment for alcohol withdrawal
starting May 12. Id. On May 17, a few days after his being released from the hospital, he consumed
two shots of vodka. Id.
The Individual told the Psychologist that, after he reported to his employer the circumstances of
his hospitalization, he started attending monthly appointments with a treatment provider through
his employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Id. He also entered into a “recovery
agreement” with his employer. Id. He reported that, at the time of the evaluation, he had been
attending weekly Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and had recently initiated individual and
group alcohol treatment. Id. The Psychologist contacted the Individual’s treatment provider and
confirmed that the Individual began a twenty-six-week program on June 30 to treat his AUD and
had been attending “more group[] [treatment sessions] per week than . . . required.” Id. The
Individual reported that he had not consumed alcohol since May 17. Id.
As part of the evaluation, the Individual underwent a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test to determine
whether he had recently consumed alcohol. Id. at 25, 38. The test results were negative, which
corroborated the Individual’s reported abstinence. Id. At the conclusion of the Report, the
- 4 -
Psychologist opined that Individual had AUD, Severe, and that the Individual could demonstrate
rehabilitation or reformation by abstaining from alcohol for at least a year, completing his current
treatment program, engaging in aftercare or AA twice per week for a year, and undergoing a PEth
test at least every six weeks for one year. Id. at 26.
At the hearing, the Individual’s ex-wife testified that while she had previously been concerned
about the Individual’s alcohol “dependency,” she had observed the Individual go “above and
beyond” over the seven months preceding the hearing by “attend[ing] classes” and making sure
his alcohol use did not “impact him any further.” Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-24-
0003 (Tr.) at 14–15.
The Individual’s coworker and the Individual’s supervisor also testified at the hearing. The
coworker testified that the Individual embraced the process of addressing the LSO’s concerns
without appearing bitter or reluctant. Id. at 42–43. The coworker also testified that the Individual
had become more reliable and significantly improved his communication. Id. at 45. The
Individual’s supervisor testified that he too had seen positive changes in the Individual’s
performance since May 2023. Id. at 50–51.
The Individual’s licensed treatment counselor testified that she had been treating the Individual
since July 3, 2023, and the Individual’s therapeutic goal is to maintain sobriety, which includes
identifying coping skills and the triggers for his alcohol use. Id. at 26–28. She testified that his
reported sobriety date is May 17, 2023. Id. at 35. She also testified the Individual’s treatment
program consisted of weekly individual therapy with her, two group substance abuse sessions per
week, and one group anger management session per week. Id. at 29. The counselor also testified
that the Individual successfully completed the twenty-six-week treatment program and the anger
management treatment, and he is scheduled to begin attending a twenty-six-week aftercare
treatment program to include weekly individual counseling and weekly group substance abuse
treatment. Id. at 29, 33–34. She described him as “engaged and fully participating.” Id. at 30. She
also testified that the Individual made significant progress over the previous six months, he realized
that his alcohol use had been problematic, and he demonstrated a good understanding of how to
continue addressing his alcohol use to prevent it from becoming a problem again. Id. at 31. She
noted that, through talk therapy, the Individual had “done a good job” identifying his triggers and
the coping skills to work through them. Id. at 32–33. Regarding the likelihood that the Individual
will continue his sobriety, the counselor opined that the Individual had “shown really good
progress [and] dedication,” and she did not “foresee that there’s going to be a problem going
forward.” Id. at 36.
At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged that he has a problem with alcohol and agreed with
the Psychologist’s conclusions in the Report. Id. at 55. He testified that, leading up to his
hospitalization, he had been consuming “a pint a night . . . of vodka.” Id. at 77. He testified that he
attempted to follow the Psychologist’s recommendations for treatment after he received the Report
by completing the twenty-six-week treatment program and moving into the aftercare program that
also includes weekly individual and group treatment. Id. at 56–57. He testified that he attended all
classes in-person to receive the maximum benefit, and he “developed a relationship” with his
counselors. Id. at 58. He testified that the treatment helped him address issues he had used alcohol
to avoid, such as “childhood traumas,” and he discovered techniques to get him “through the
- 5 -
difficult stuff” and better “cope and discuss things, as opposed to using alcohol as a crutch . . . .”
Id. at 58–59. He described his coping skills as “taking time for [himself], being able to talk about
[his] problems,” and realizing “it’s okay.” Id. at 59. He also testified that anger management
treatment taught him that anger issues could be the result of other issues, such as sadness, that need
to be addressed. Id. He testified that he enrolled in anger management at the recommendation of
his substance abuse counselor because he wanted to identify “better ways to manage” his
“emotions and anger” because he “felt . . . overwhelmed all the time . . . .” Id. at 75–76. Through
anger management treatment, he learned to actively regulate his emotions instead of trying to
suppress them. Id. at 60. The Individual also described addressing his triggers for alcohol
consumption by using visualization and planning to prepare for his workday or scenarios where
he may be around alcohol. Id. at 61.
Regarding his reported AA attendance, the Individual clarified that he attended a weekly group
class similar to AA six times at the beginning of his treatment before discontinuing it and beginning
the twenty-six-week treatment program. Id. at 65, 77. He testified that he decided to enroll in
aftercare because he “knew [the treatment] was already working,” he “was already doing well in
it,” and he knew the program would provide the documentation he needed to show compliance
with the program. Id. at 65–66. The Individual highlighted the fact that he had followed the rules
and obligations of his employer’s voluntary treatment program. Id. at 74–75.
The Individual confirmed his sobriety date as May 17, 2023. Id. at 67. He testified that he will
continue to be successful in his sobriety because it is something he wants, and he described
experiencing positive changes that include having “more ambitions,” improving his relationship
with his daughter, and being able to pay more attention to details at work. Id. at 68. He testified
that he intends to remain abstinent into the future. Id. at 69.
The record includes a November 20, 2023, letter from the EAP psychologist. Ex. G. That
psychologist reported that the Individual “has been highly complaint with all aspects of the [EAP
agreement],” including monthly PEth testing, random drug and breath alcohol tests, attending the
twenty-six-week program, and attending monthly visits with the EAP psychologist. Id. The EAP
psychologist reported that the Individual is “exceptionally well-motivated to succeed in all aspects
of his recovery” and that all test results were negative. Id. The record also includes monthly PEth
test results covering July 2023 to December 2023; all test results are negative. Ex. I; Ex. Q.
At the hearing, the Psychologist testified and provided an updated opinion regarding the
Individual’s AUD and stated that it was now in early remission based on the Individual’s
demonstrated abstinence since May 2023. Id. at 83. The Psychologist also testified that the
Individual’s accomplishments, including completing the treatment program and PEth testing for
the preceding seven months, demonstrated reformation and rehabilitation of his AUD. Id. at 83–
84. The Psychologist also noted that while he initially recommended twelve months of abstinence,
treatment, and clinical PEth testing, the evidence presented by the Individual, including the
testimony of his counselor and her opinion of his likely success going forward, was sufficient to
demonstrate adequate evidence of rehabilitation because the Individual had successfully
demonstrated “engagement and compliance and participation and treatment.” Id. at 84–86.
- 6 -
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
Paragraphs 23(b) and 23(c) apply to resolve the Guideline G concerns. Regarding ¶ 23(b), first,
the evidence demonstrates that the Individual acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use. At the
hearing, he admitted that he has a problem with alcohol and accepted the Psychologist’s diagnosis
of AUD. His testimony reflects his realization that he had used alcohol as a crutch to address
emotional issues.
Second, I find that the Individual has taken significant action to overcome his problem. He
successfully completed the EAP-recommended twenty-six-week treatment program, he enrolled
in and is set to begin a twenty-six-week aftercare program, he proactively completed an anger
management program to further address issues that contributed to his alcohol consumption, and he
successfully stopped consuming alcohol shortly after his hospitalization. I find it particularly
compelling that the Individual attended more treatment sessions per week than initially
recommended by attending three individual counseling sessions instead of one per week, which
demonstrates his sincere effort to overcome his problem.
Finally, I find that the Individual’s established pattern of abstinence has been in accordance with
treatment recommendations. The record demonstrates that the Individual successfully maintained
abstinence for the seven months leading up to the hearing date. Furthermore, the counselor’s and
Individual’s testimony demonstrate that the Individual complied with the counselor’s treatment
recommendations and successfully completed the twenty-six-week program. In doing so, the
- 7 -
record demonstrates that the Individual exceeded the program participation requirements.
Additionally, the EAP psychologist reported that the individual had been “highly compliant” with
the program requirements. And the Psychologist opined that the Individual had successfully
demonstrated reformation and rehabilitation. This evidence makes clear that the Individual
successfully maintained abstinence by following the recommendations of his treatment providers
and thus satisfies ¶ 23(b).
Turning to ¶ 23(c), the evidence also demonstrates that 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. The evidence demonstrates that the Individual is scheduled to
continue his current treatment by starting a twenty-six-week aftercare program. There is no
evidence in the record that the Individual previously relapsed after receiving treatment. Lastly, the
Individual’s treatment providers agree that the Individual is making satisfactory progress.
Accordingly, I find that the evidence satisfies ¶ 23(c).
Because I find that the Individual has put forth sufficient evidence to mitigate the concerns that
stem from his AUD, I also conclude that he has resolved the concerns that stem from his decade-
old DUI. I therefore conclude that the Individual has resolved the Guideline G security concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals