PSH-24-0012

*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 7, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0012
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 20, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be restored.
I. Background
On August 8, 2021, police charged the Individual with Nuisance Abandoned Vehicle. Exhibit
(Ex.) 5 at 1. On March 23, 2022, a summons was issued to the Individual for Failure to Appear in
Court. Ex. 5 at 1–2. A second summons was issued to the Individual for Failure to Appear in
Court on September 26, 2022. Ex. 5 at 1–2. These charges and summons arose because of an
abandoned motor vehicle in the Individual’s driveway. Ex. 5 at 1–2.
On November 29, 2022, the local security office (the LSO) prepared an incident report (IR) after
the Individual reported that there were two outstanding warrants for his arrest because he had failed
to report to court. Ex. 5 at 1. The Individual further indicated he did not realize that he had been
summoned to court because he does not check his mailbox. Ex. 5 at 1. The Individual further
explained that he does not check his mailbox because he experiences fear when approaching his
mailbox. Ex. 5 at 1.
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-
The LSO subsequently issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual. The Individual
submitted his response to the LOI on April 17, 2023. Ex. 6 at 9. In his response, the Individual
stated: “I have a very strong fear of getting mail” which he further described as “a constant for
me.” Ex. 6 at 1. The Individual further reported that his fear of getting mail had caused his mail
service to be suspended at times and had caused him “to miss several communications that pertain
to my work and personal life.” Ex. 6 at 3. The Individual stated that he had parked an inoperative
motor vehicle in his driveway for two years, which led to him being charged with violating a local
ordinance. Ex. 6 at 5. The Individual paid $200 in fines for his violations. Ex. 6 at 5. He
subsequently had the motor vehicle towed from his property. Ex. 6 at 6. The Individual further
reported that he was not currently receiving treatment for any mental health issues. Ex. 6 at 1. The
Individual stated he copes with his anxiety about his mailbox by mentally bracing himself and
baring it. Ex. 6 at 4.
After receiving the Individual’s LOI response, the LSO requested that he undergo an evaluation
by a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (Psychiatrist), who conducted a clinical interview (CI) of the
Individual on June 14, 2023. Ex. 7 at 1; Tr. at 20. The Psychiatrist subsequently issued a report
of his finding (the Report) on July 5, 2023. Ex. 7 at 15. In addition to conducting the CI, the
Psychiatrist administered two standardized psychological screening tests, the Shipley-2 (a rapid
IQ test), the “PAI Plus” (a general personality assessment with validity scales and proposed
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5) diagnoses). Ex. 7 at 3–4. The Individual also
underwent a urine drug screen and a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test to detect alcohol
consumption. Ex. 7 at 4. The Individual’s urine screening test was negative. Ex. 7 at 7. The
Individual’s PEth test result was positive, indicating that he had recently used alcohol. Ex. 7 at 7.
The Psychiatrist opined that the Individual’s PEth level, 172 ng/mL, suggested that he was
consuming large amounts of alcohol. Ex. 7 at 7.
The Psychiatrist reviewed the Individual’s medical records and determined that the Individual had
a significant history of substance abuse, having engaged in heavy alcohol and stimulant use until
1995, when he stopped using alcohol and stimulants after receiving treatment. Ex. 7 at 4. The
Individual began attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) in 1995 and continued doing so for 18
or 19 years. Ex. 7 at 4, 7. However, during the CI, the Individual reported he has resumed alcohol
use, indicating that he would often consume six to ten beers over a weekend two to three times a
month. Ex. 7 at 6, 8. The Individual also reported that he had been experiencing “panic attacks”
when going to the mailbox. Ex. 7 at 11. The Individual claimed that “his anxiety about his mailbox
started during a labor strike when he allegedly received ‘plant mailings’ that included threats to
lose his clearance, to lose his badge, that their insurance would be canceled, and the strike would
be broken.” Ex. 7 at 11. The Individual reported that he can still go up to two weeks without
checking his mail. Ex. 7 at 11.
The Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual met the criteria for Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD),
and Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild set forth in the DSM-5-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Ex.
7 at 13. He further opined that the Individual’s SAD impairs the Individual’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness, that it contributes to his AUD, and that the Individual’s “prognosis is not
favorable if he continues to drink at the current level or more.” Ex. 7 at 14.
-3-
In order to treat his AUD, the Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual: rejoin AA; attend
three AA meetings a week; work the AA 12-step program with a sponsor; abstain from alcohol
use for 12 months; participate in his employer’s employee assistance program; and obtain
treatment for his anxiety. Ex. 7 at 15. The Psychiatrist further recommended that the Individual
undergo PEth testing and random alcohol breath testing. Ex. 7 at 15.
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.
On October 18, 2023, the Individual submitted his request for a hearing. Ex. 2 at 1. The LSO
forwarded his 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), I took testimony from two witnesses: the Individual and the
Psychiatrist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-24-0012 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The
LSO submitted nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 9. The Individual did not submit any
exhibits.
II. The Notification Letter and the Associated Security Concerns
The Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter 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 I
(Psychological Conditions).
Under Guideline G, the LSO cites the Psychiatrist’s conclusion that the Individual meets the DSM-
5-TR’s criteria for AUD, Mild. 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 “diagnosis by a duly qualified . . . Psychiatrist . . . of alcohol disorder.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 22(d).
Under Adjudicative Guideline I, the LSO cites the Psychiatrist’s conclusions that the Individual
meets the DSM-5-TR’s criteria for SAD, which in the clinical opinion of the Psychiatrist, impairs
his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. This allegation adequately justify the LSO’s
invocation of Guideline I. The Adjudicative Guidelines state: “[c]ertain emotional, mental, or
personality conditions can impair judgement, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 27. Among those conditions set forth under Guideline I that could raise a
disqualifying security concern is “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that
the individual has a condition that may impair judgement, stability, reliability or trustworthiness.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b).
-4-
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.
IV. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual testified that the only treatment he has received for his alcohol issues
occurred in 1995. Tr. at 11. He then indicated that he received treatment in early 2000. Tr. at 11.
The Individual admitted that he had not followed any of the recommendations made by the
Psychiatrist in the Report. Tr. at 12–13. Nor is the Individual receiving counseling for any other
issues. Tr. at 13. When the Individual was asked if he had any disagreements with the
Psychiatrist’s conclusions, the Individual first testified: “Scientifically, no” but then stated that he
did not agree with the diagnoses. Tr. at 14. The Individual admitted he is drinking regularly but
does not believe that his use of alcohol is problematic. Tr. at 14–17. The Individual testified that
he drinks beer on three or four nights a week, and that he consumes two to four beers a night. Tr.
at 17–18. The Individual further testified that he expects to consume from six to 14 beers during
the upcoming weekend. Tr. at 18. When asked why he does not believe his present alcohol use is
problematic the Individual testified:
Because the reasons why I partake or I drink now and to the extent that I drink now
is nothing comparable to what it was when I went into treatment back in my mid-
20s. My behavior, my reasons, my triggers are nothing comparable to what it was
back then. I do not drink to the excess that I used to.
Tr. at 15. The Individual further testified:
When I made my decision ultimately that I wanted to drink again, I did that
consciously, knowing that it was a risk. I went into that, and I do not experience the
-5-
problems that I had back in my 20s. I do not drink to the point of uncontrolled
drinking. I bring it back to that. I do not have the wish or the negative motivation
to change differently. When I – when I quit drinking was because extreme
circumstances. I knew my life was in jeopardy. I made that decision on my own. I
had nobody telling me or suggesting that I had a problem or that I needed help. I
did that on my own. I did that almost 30 years ago. And I’m 30 years more mature
today, knowing that I have those options, I’ve learned those lessons. I’ve never
forgotten that. I know what the – the fear is or the risk.
Tr. at 16. The Individual further testified that he has no fear of leaving his house, but rather his
“fear is going to the mailbox because of what I associate with what happened during the labor
dispute.” Tr. at 35–36.
The Psychiatrist testified at the hearing after observing the testimony of the Individual. He noted
that the Individual had not complied with any of the Report’s recommendations. Tr. at 22. The
Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with AUD because had discontinued his AA participation
and had begun using alcohol again after 19 years of sobriety. Tr. at 23. Moreover, the Psychiatrist
noted, the Individual’s current drinking was somewhat heavy, significant, and regular. Tr. at 23–
24. The Psychiatrist noted that AUD is a progressive disease and that the Individual’s decision to
resume alcohol use puts him at risk. Tr. at 26–27. He opined that the Individual’s SAD was
exacerbated by his alcohol use. Tr. at 27.
The Psychiatrist noted that he diagnosed the Individual with SAD because the nature of the
Individual’s worries about what might happen if he went to his mailbox were out of proportion to
what seemed to be actually happening, and that “his expectation of harm was much, much greater
than it seemed to be in reality . . . .” Tr. at 33.
V. Analysis
Even after he received the Report, the Individual did not take any action to mitigate the security
concerns raised by the Report. Nor has he presented any evidence contradicting the Report’s
conclusions. Instead, he argues that he is sufficiently aware of the risks posed by alcohol use to
allow him to continue using alcohol despite his past and that he can manage his anxiety by willing
himself to visit his mailbox by mentally bracing himself and baring his anxiety. The Individual’s
active and presently untreated mental health and substance abuse disorders raise serious concerns
about the Individual’s judgement and reliability. Moreover, in failing to address these disorders,
despite their obvious legal, personal, and occupational consequences, the Individual is exhibiting
markedly poor judgment.
A. Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G. 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
-6-
Guidelines at ¶ 23(a). In the present case, the evidence shows that the Individual problematic
alcohol consumption continues to occur. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not 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 not
acknowledged the problematic nature of his drinking and has taken no recent actions to address
his present problem. Moreover, the Individual receives no formal support and continues to use
alcohol. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not 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 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(c). In the present case, the Individual is not
participating in counseling or a treatment program to address his problematic alcohol consumption
and has a history of relapsing after treatment. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not
satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(c).
Fourth, 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). While the Individual completed an intensive treatment program in 1995, he
continues to use alcohol. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating
condition set forth at ¶ 23(d).
I therefore find that the security concerns raised by the LSO under Guideline G have not been
resolved.
B. Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth five factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I. First, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security
concerns under Guideline I if they can show that “the identified condition is readily controllable
with treatment, and the individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(a). While the Individual’s SAD may well be
controllable with treatment, the Individual is not receiving any treatment for his SAD.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(a).
Second, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline I “if the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for
a condition that is amenable to treatment and the individual is currently receiving counseling or
-7-
treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental health professional.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 29(b). While the Individual’s SAD is likely amenable to treatment, the Individual
is not currently receiving any treatment for his SAD. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has
not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(b).
Third, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I if a “recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous condition is
under control or in remission and has a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(c). In the present case, there is no evidence of such an opinion in
the record. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set
forth at ¶ 29(c).
Fourth, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline I if “the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has
been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indication of emotional instability.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(d). The evidence in the record indicates that the Individual’s SAD
has been a long-term concern for the Individual and remains active and unresolved. Accordingly,
I find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(d).
Fifth, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I if “there is no indication of a current problem.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(e).
The continuation of the problematic behaviors that are symptomatic of the Individual’s SAD
indicate that the Individual’s problem is still current. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has
not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 29(e).
I therefore find that the Individual has not provided adequate evidence to mitigate and resolve the
security concerns raised under Guideline I.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and I.
After considering all of the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner,
I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns raised under Guidelines G and I.
Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not
endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest.
Therefore, the Individual’s security clearance should not 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