PSH-24-0011

*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: November 6, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0011
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 6, 2024
__________________________
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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires him to hold a
security clearance. Derogatory information was discovered regarding his alcohol consumption,
personal conduct, and criminal conduct. The Local Security Office (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 in order to resolve the substantial
doubt regarding his 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 his wife and testified on his own behalf. The LSO presented
the testimony of the DOE consultant psychiatrist who had evaluated the Individual. See Transcript
of Hearing (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted 14 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1
through 14 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted 10 exhibits, marked as Exhibits
A through J.
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 his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guidelines E, G, and J 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 E states that:
Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive
information. Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and
candid answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. Conditions that could raise a security concern include:
(a) Deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any
personnel security questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used
to conduct investigations, determine employment qualifications, award benefits or
status, determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities;
(b) Deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting
information, concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security
official, competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a
recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other
official government representative;
(c) Credible adverse information in several adjudicative issue areas that is not
sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single guideline, but which,
when considered as a whole, supports a whole-person assessment of questionable
judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of candor, unwillingness to comply
with rules and regulations, or other characteristics indicating that the individual
may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive information;
(d) Credible adverse information that is not explicitly covered under any other
guideline and may not be sufficient by itself for an adverse determination, but
which, when combined with all available information, supports a whole-person
assessment of questionable judgment, untrustworthiness, unreliability, lack of
candor, unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations, or other characteristics
3
indicating that the individual may not properly safeguard classified or sensitive
information. This includes, but is not limited to, consideration of:
(1) Untrustworthy or unreliable behavior to include breach of client
confidentiality, release of proprietary information, unauthorized release of
sensitive corporate or government protected information;
(2) Any disruptive, violent, or other inappropriate behavior;
(3) A pattern of dishonesty or rule violations; and
(4) Evidence of significant misuse of Government or other employer’s time or
resources;
(e) Personal conduct, or concealment of information about one’s conduct, that creates
a vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or duress by a foreign intelligence
entity or other individual or group. Such conduct includes:
(1) Engaging in activities which, if known, could affect the person’s personal,
professional, or community standing;
(2) While in another country, engaging in any activity that is illegal in that country;
(3) While in another country, engaging in any activity that, while legal there, is
illegal in the United States;
(f) Violation of a written or recorded commitment made by the individual to the
employer as a condition of employment; and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activity.
Id. at ¶ 16.
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;
4
(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 J states that criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness and that, by its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. Conditions that could
raise a security concern include:
(a) A pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to
affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast doubt
on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness;
(b) Evidence (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;
(c) Individual is currently on parole or probation;
(d) Violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-
mandated rehabilitation program; and
(e) Discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces for reasons less than “Honorable.”
Id. at ¶ 31.
The LSO alleges under Guideline G:
1. In June 2023, a DOE consultant psychiatrist (the Psychiatrist) evaluated the
Individual and, in a report issued later that month, concluded that the Individual
habitually consumed alcohol on a binge basis that could result in impaired
judgment, emotional or behavioral stability, decision making, and problem solving.
The Individual admitted to consuming four to five beers per occasion, once a week
for the past 20 years; he acknowledged being intoxicated on approximately five
occasions per year.
5
2. Directly after the Psychiatrist’s evaluation, the Individual was administered an
Ethyl Glucoronide (EtG) urine test and a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) blood test to
screen for alcohol use over the past week and month, respectively. The Individual’s
EtG was positive at a level of 3,529 ng/mL, and his PEth was positive with a result
of 144 ng/mL. The Psychiatrist interpreted the results to indicate that the Individual
consumed a significant amount of alcohol within the prior month, contrary to his
reported abstinence since his December 2022 arrest for Driving Under the Influence
(DUI). When first confronted with the positive alcohol laboratory test results, the
Individual had no explanation for the test results; however, he later admitted to
consuming three cans of a sugar-free energy drink which contained 6% alcohol the
day before the laboratory testing. The explanation did not alter the Psychiatrist
opinions and conclusions.
3. The Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate
evidence of rehabilitation. To achieve adequate evidence of rehabilitation, the
Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual abstain from drinking alcohol for at
least one year and attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) support meetings for a
minimum of one year.
4. The Individual admitted in his January 2023, Letter of Interrogatory (LOI)
response, that he consumed four to six beers during a typical week, usually on a
Saturday; that the most that he usually consumed at one time was six beers; and
that he typically became intoxicated about five times per year. He admitted that he
had maintained this pattern for about 20 years.
5. In a January 2023 Personnel Security Information Report (PSIR), the Individual
reported that he was arrested for DUI in December 2022.
6. On his July 2017 Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP), the
Individual admitted that he was arrested for and pled guilty to misdemeanor DUI
in December 1998.
7. Law enforcement checks disclosed the Individual was arrested in May 1991, for an
underage alcohol offense.
The LSO alleges under Guideline E:
1. In his January 2023, LOI response, the Individual noted that he had not had any
type of alcohol since his DUI arrest on December 30, 2022. During his June 2023
evaluation with the Psychiatrist, the Individual reaffirmed that he had not had any
alcohol since his arrest, but subsequent EtG and PEth testing showed that he had
recently consumed significant amounts of alcohol. When contacted about the test
results, the Individual continued to deny the use of any alcohol since December
2022. A week later, the Individual contacted the Psychiatrist to offer the
explanation that, the day prior to the laboratory testing, he consumed three cans of
a sugar free energy drink which, unbeknownst to him at the time, contained 6%
alcohol.
6
2. The Individual failed to disclose his 1991 underage drinking offense on his 2017
QNSP.
The LSO alleges under Guideline J:
1. In his January 2023 PSIR, the Individual reported that he was arrested for DUI on
December 30, 2022. He admitted to consuming about eight beers and two shots
between 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm at a local bar before driving to a Taco Bell. The
Individual admitted to police that he had consumed more alcohol than he should have
and cooperated with field sobriety testing, which he failed. He was transported to a
local hospital for a blood alcohol test, which was positive at a blood alcohol
concentration (BAC) of 0.27%.
2. In August 2017, the Individual was arrested for disorderly conduct after getting into a
physical fight. The charges were later dismissed.
3. In December 1998, the Individual was arrested for and pled guilty to misdemeanor
DUI.
4. In May 1991, the Individual was arrested for an underage alcohol offense.
Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and J 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 at ¶ 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 his 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.
7
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
In her testimony at the hearing, the Individual’s wife stated that she has known him for 24 years.
Tr. at 13. In those years, she has typically seen the Individual consume alcohol on weekends and
has only seen him intoxicated a few times. Id. at 13–14. She testified that he would typically
consume four to six beers on Saturdays. Id. at 14. She knew about the Individual’s 1998 DUI. The
spouse testified that she has never seen the Individual as intoxicated as he was on the night of his
most recent DUI, except once or twice when he was in his 20s. Id. at 16. She testified that the
Individual last consumed alcohol in the summer of 2023. Id. at 18–19. She testified that the
Individual has attended counseling and Alcoholics Anonymous (AA). Id. at 16. She testified that
the Individual has stopped spending time with friends and family members with whom he used to
consume alcohol regularly. Id. at 16–17. She has noticed a positive change in his attitude toward
alcohol. Id. at 17–18.
The Individual testified that on the day of his most recent DUI, he began drinking with his cousins
around 1:00 pm. Tr. at 24. He had one beer at his aunt’s house then went to a bar with his cousins
to watch a sports event. Id. Though he had intended to have “a few beers,” he ended up drinking
with his cousins all day. Id. He consumed “at least 10 beers” and two shots of tequila that “were
more than a shot, they were just free poured into a glass.” Id. at 25. He returned to his aunt’s house
and then chose to drive to a fast-food restaurant. Id. A person at the restaurant was concerned about
his state of intoxication and called the police, who conducted a traffic stop on the Individual’s
vehicle. Id. at 26–27. He had a blood alcohol concentration (BAC) of 0.27% and was arrested and
charged with DUI. Id.
The Individual was charged with Disorderly Conduct in 2017, but the charges were dropped when
the state learned that the Individual had been acting in self-defense. Tr. at 28–29. In 1998, the
Individual was arrested for and plead guilty to DUI with a BAC of 0.16%. Id. at 29–30. In 1991,
while still in high school, he received a citation for underage drinking after drinking with his
friends. Id. at 30–31. He paid a fine to resolve the matter. Id. He did not report the arrest on his
2017 QNSP because he thought the charges were removed from his record when he turned 18. Id.
at 31. During the initial investigation of the Individual in 2017, DOE discovered the 1991 arrest
but the Individual was not sent to administrative review. Ex. 12 at 46.
The Individual testified that for about 20 years prior to his 2022 DUI, he typically drank four to
six beers on Saturdays. Tr. at 32–33. He testified that about five times per year he would drink
more than six beers on a Saturday. Id. at 33. He testified that it typically would take more than six
beers in three hours for him to become intoxicated, depending on the beer’s alcohol content. Id.
The Individual testified that he was abstinent from alcohol for about five months after his DUI,
but he consumed alcohol to intoxication on June 3, June 10, June 15 and June 17, and consumed
alcohol about every other day during that time. Tr. at 35–37. On the occasions when he drank to
intoxication, he was travelling with his son’s sports team and saw the other parents drinking. Id.
at 36–37. He testified that he thought no one would know and that when he met with the
Psychiatrist, everything would be out of his system. Id. He testified that when his initial PEth test
8
showed that he had been consuming alcohol, he lied to the Psychiatrist, first telling him that he
had not consumed alcohol since his DUI and later telling him that he had mistakenly consumed an
energy drink that he did not know contained alcohol. Id. at 37–38. The Individual testified that
“the alcoholic in [him]” was trying to avoid the consequences of his drinking. Id. at 38.
The Individual had abstained from alcohol for about six months by the day of the hearing. Tr. at
44. The Individual attended AA at least once per week. Id. at 39. He began with three online
meetings in August 2023 as part of his DUI sentence and continued consistently after. Id. Around
the end of September 2023, his license was reinstated after suspension for the DUI conviction, and
he began going to meetings in person. Id. He worked through the first three of the 12 Steps on his
own and had gotten a sponsor about two weeks before the hearing. Id. at 39–40. He began seeing
a counselor weekly in October. Id. at 41. By the time of the hearing, he was seeing the counselor
every other week. Id. The Individual began doing regular alcohol testing in December 2023. Id. at
41–42. He submitted the results of two EtG tests (January 3 and 8, 2024) and one PEth test
(December 30, 2023), all of which were negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. G; Ex. H; Ex. J.
The Individual had a lifelong friend who had been sober for about three years. Tr. at 49. They
talked often about recovery and the friend had been a strong support for the Individual. Id. The
Individual had completed all court requirements for a pretrial diversion for his DUI conviction. Id.
at 44–45; Ex. I at 1. He intended to remain abstinent from alcohol indefinitely. Id. at 59–60.
The Psychiatrist testified that, based on the hearing testimony, he believed the Individual met the
criteria for an Alcohol Use Disorder and that the Individual was in early remission. Tr. at 71–72.
He testified that the Individual was making progress but was not yet rehabilitated. Id. at 74–75. He
testified that the Individual would need a year of abstinence and substance abuse treatment to show
rehabilitation. Id. at 75. For that reason, he also gave the Individual a guarded prognosis. He noted
that the Individual had a good support system and that his motivation was growing stronger over
time. Id. at 80–81.
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 at ¶ 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
9
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 could mitigate a Guideline G security concern 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. None of the conditions apply in this case.
The Individual has started the hard work of recovery and appears to be making good progress in
his efforts. However, he has had a recent relapse and has now been abstinent for six months at
most. His relapse occurred after a claimed period of five months of abstinence, indicating that six
months may not be long enough to show a low risk of relapse. As such, he has not demonstrated a
clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with the
Psychiatrist’s recommendations. While he has taken accountability for his actions and was
forthcoming at the hearing, he has not completed a treatment program and has not completed a
significant portion of the 12 Steps.
Condition (a) does not apply because the Individual’s last alcohol consumption is recent and when
he was recently consuming alcohol, his use was frequent. Conditions (b) and (d) do not apply
because the Individual has not demonstrated a pattern of abstinence as recommended by the
Psychiatrist. Condition (d) also does not apply because the Individual has not attended a treatment
program. Condition (c) does not apply because the Individual has a history of relapse, is not in a
treatment program, and is only seeing his counselor twice a month, which I find insufficient to
meet the type of counseling indicated in the condition to be equivalent to a treatment program.
There is also no evidence that the counseling is designed to address substance abuse specifically.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Guideline G concerns are mitigated.
B. Guidelines E and J
10
Conditions that could mitigate a Guideline E security concern include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
Conditions that could mitigate a Guideline J security concern include:
(a) 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;
(b) The individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) No reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with
11
the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment
record, or constructive community involvement.
Id. at ¶ 32.
The Individual’s dishonesty and criminal activity are inextricably intertwined with his alcohol use.
Regarding Guideline E, his impulse to lie about his alcohol use came, in part, from his addiction
to alcohol. Regarding Guideline J, his decision to drive after drinking occurred while he was
intoxicated and his decision-making skills were impaired. And, of course, driving after drinking
requires alcohol consumption. The Individual is not yet rehabilitated from his maladaptive alcohol
use. Until he is rehabilitated, I cannot be sure that he will not repeat the criminal behavior,
particularly in light of his pattern of engaging in alcohol related criminal activity intermittently
over the last 30 years. The Individual’s long history of alcohol related offenses indicates that he
may not be able to fully follow laws and rules if he is consuming alcohol, so until I can be certain
that he has resolved the alcohol-related concerns, I cannot find that he is unlikely to recidivate.
See, contra, Guideline J Mitigating Condition (d), Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
Furthermore, until the Individual is rehabilitated, I cannot be sure that he will be completely candid
with DOE. The Individual testified that his dishonesty with the Psychiatrist was “the alcoholic in
[him]” trying to avoid the consequences of his actions, which calls into question the Individual’s
trustworthiness when he is not abstaining from alcohol. While I do find credible the Individual’s
explanation for omitting the 1991 arrest from his QNSP, I cannot be certain that he would be
completely candid in future reporting if I cannot be certain that he has resolved the alcohol-related
concerns.
For these reasons, I cannot find that the Guideline E and J concerns 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 E, G, and
J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has not succeeded in fully
resolving those concerns. Therefore, I cannot 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 not 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