PSH-24-0027

*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: December 8, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0027
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 22, 2024
___________________________
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 not be restored.
I. Background
On January 12, 2018, and on August 8, 2023, the Individual signed and submitted a Questionnaire
for National Security Positions (QNSP) to a Local Security Office (LSO). Exhibit (Ex.) 9 at 42;
Ex. 10 at 1. Both QNSPs asked the Individual: “In the last seven (7) years, have you illegally
used any drugs or controlled substances?” Ex. 9 at 42; Ex. 10 at 37 (emphasis in original). The
Individual responded “no” to this question in both her QNSPs. Ex. 9 at 42; Ex. 10 at 37.
On June 29, 2023, police arrested the Individual and charged her with Driving Under the Influence
(DUI). DOE Order 472.2A required that she report this arrest to the LSO. DOE Order 472.2A,
Attachment 5 at § 6(a). On July 6, 2023, the Individual completed and sent a Personnel Security
Information Reporting Form (PSIRF) to the following email address:
“IncidentsReportsWaivers@nnsa.doe.gov.” Ex. A at 1. The correct email address for the
submission of a PSIRF was “IncidentReportsWaivers@nnsa.doe.gov.”2 Ex. B at 3. The LSO
accordingly did not receive her report of this arrest.
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 email address used by the Individual contained an extra “s”.
2
A “Rap Back Alert”3 informed the LSO of the Individual’s June 29, 2023, DUI arrest. Ex. 5 at 1.
The LSO subsequently issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual on July 24, 2023.
Ex. 6 at 10. The LOI asked the Individual several questions concerning her DUI arrest. The
Individual’s response to the LOI stated that she had consumed two glasses of wine and two shots
of tequila over a six-hour period on the night of her DUI arrest. Ex. 6 at 1. The Individual reported
that her blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was .16%. Ex. 6 at 3. The Individual further stated
that since February of 2020, she had been consuming “up to 1-2 glasses of wine per week.” Ex. 6
at 4. The Individual indicated that she did not believe she had a problem with alcohol. Ex. 6 at 6.
The LOI also asked the Individual to “Explain why you did not report this arrest/charges in
compliance per DOE’s Reporting Requirements.” Ex. 6 at 7. The Individual denied deliberately
trying to conceal her arrest from the LSO, stating: “On July 6th, I contacted the Information and
Personnel Security Division . . . for instructions on how to properly self report.” Ex. 6 at 7–9.
The LOI also asked the Individual: “Have you ever intentionally falsified, omitted, or
misrepresented any other information in the security clearance process, such as on security
questionnaires, or statements to an investigator?” The Individual responded by stating “No.” Ex.
6 at 8.
The LSO requested the Individual to undergo a psychological examination by a DOE-contracted
psychologist (the Psychologist). On September 7, 2023, the Psychologist conducted a clinical
interview (CI) of the Individual. Ex. 7 at 2. In addition to interviewing the Individual, the
Psychologist reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file, administered the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-Third Edition (MMPI) to the Individual, and had her undergo a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test to detect alcohol consumption. Ex. 7 at 2. The
Individual’s PEth test was positive at a level of 110 nanograms per milliliter (ng/mL). Ex. 7 at 5.
The Individual’s MMPI results did not indicate elevations on any clinical scales. Ex. 7 at 6. The
Psychologist issued a report of her findings (the Report) on September 21, 2023, in which she
found that the Individual did not meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) set forth in the
Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition - Text Revision (DSM-5-
TR). Ex. 7 at 4. However, the Psychologist noted that she believed that the Individual’s self-
reports about the level of her alcohol consumption were unreliable and that her PEth test results
“were consistent with ongoing, habitual, binge drinking.” Ex. 7 at 5–6. Accordingly, the
Psychologist concluded that the Individual “engages in habitual binge consumption of alcohol to
the point of impaired judgment.” Ex. 7 at 6. The Psychologist further concluded that the Individual
was neither reformed nor rehabilitated. Ex. 7 at 6. The Psychologist recommended that, in order
to show that she was reformed or rehabilitated, the Individual: “should participate in a chemical
dependency program of at least three months duration to achieve abstinence from alcohol. She
should demonstrate that she can maintain abstinence by producing negative PEth tests monthly for
a total of twelve months. The PEth tests should be at her own expense.” Ex. 7 at 6.
During the CI, the Individual made several statements to the Psychologist which raised questions
about her judgement, reliability, and trustworthiness. First, the Individual stated that she had
consumed four glasses of wine and two shots of tequila over a period of six hours on the night of
3 The DOE monitors security clearance holders’ arrest records as part of its continuous monitoring program.
3
her DUI arrest.4 Ex. 7 at 2. The Psychologist estimated this amount of alcohol should have
resulted in a BAC of .05% rather than .16%. Ex. 7 at 2. The Psychologist further noted: “To
produce a blood alcohol content of 0.16, she would have had to consume between six and seven
drinks within an hour.” Ex. 7 at 2. Second, the Individual admitted that she had consumed a fifth
of cognac twice weekly from May 2020 to July 2020. Ex. 7 at 3. Third, the Individual admitted
that she had used cannabis and that her last use of cannabis occurred in 2017. Ex. 7 at 4. When
the Psychologist asked the Individual why she had responded “no” to the questions in the QNSPs
asking if she had used any drugs or controlled substances in the past seven years, the Individual
responded by claiming that she did not remember being asked that question in the QNSPs. Ex. 7
at 4. These statements led the Psychologist to remark:
A concerning pattern arose regarding her minimizing and/or failing to disclose
information that was potentially embarrassing or negative. This was seen in the
discrepancies between what she reported in the LOI versus at the CI regarding her
drinking behavior and in the [QNSP] versus the CI about her cannabis use. This
raises a concern about her candidness and trustworthiness.
Ex. 7 at 4.
After receiving this information, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by
issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing her that it received derogatory information
that created a substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance and that she
was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the security concerns. 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), I took
testimony from the Individual and the Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-
24-0027 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The DOE Counsel submitted eleven exhibits, marked as
Exhibits 1 through 11. The Individual submitted the following thirteen exhibits, marked as Exhibits
A through M.
Exhibit A consists of (1) a copy of a screen shot of a DOE PSIRF dated July 6, 2023, for the
Individual indicating that she had been arrested, and indicating that the form should be submitted
to incidentreportswaivers@nnsa.doe.gov, and (2) a copy of an email, dated July 6, 2023,
submitting that form to incidentsreportswaivers@nnsa.doe.gov instead.
Exhibit B consists of a copy of an email chain, dated March 19, 2024 through March 20, 2024,
between the Individual and incidentreportswaivers@nnsa.doe.gov in which the Individual stated
“I mistakenly sent the form to incidentsreportswaivers@nnsa.doe.gov exactly 3 working days from
the actual incident rather than the correct incidentreportswaivers@nnsa.doe.gov.” Ex. B at 3.
4 In her response to the LOI, the Individual had stated that she had consumed two glasses of wine and two shots of
tequila over a six-hour period. Ex. 6 at 1.
4
Exhibit C is a character reference letter, dated February 9, 2024, from the Director of a Community
Organization for which the Individual had volunteered for many years. The Director indicated
that she has known the Individual for over twenty years and considered her to be “one of the most
dedicated, hardworking and innovative people I’ve had the pleasure of working with in any
capacity. She is also compassionate, kind and never misses the opportunity to help others.” Ex. C
at 1.
Exhibit D is a character reference letter from the Individual’s Pastor who indicated he has known
the Individual and her family since her teenage years. Ex. D at 1. The Pastor further described
the Individual as “an excellent role model for those seeking a more active and rewarding
relationship with God, . . . a person of good moral character, and as a bright spot in our
congregation.” Ex. D at 1.
Exhibit E is a character reference letter from a PhD scientist coworker of the Individual. The
scientist described the Individual as “self motivated” and a “great leader.” Ex. E at 1. She further
described the Individual as “one of the most dedicated, hardworking and innovative people I’ve
had the pleasure of working with in any capacity” and stated that she “can vouch for [the
Individual’s] emotional intelligence, trustworthiness and approachability.” Ex. E at 1.
Exhibit F is a document indicating that the Individual had attended an online three-month DUI
Program from November 28, 2023, through March 26, 2024. Ex. F at 1–2.
Exhibit G is a document indicating that the Individual had been admitted to an Intensive Outpatient
Program (IOP) on March 4, 2024. Ex. G at 1.
Exhibit H is a letter, dated March 8, 2024, from the IOP indicating that the Individual’s insurance
carrier had refused to pay for her IOP, despite the IOP’s Medical Director’s opinion that the
Individual could benefit from substance abuse treatment, and that the Individual “has elected not
to self-pay for treatment at our facility.” Ex. H at 1.
Exhibit I is a letter indicating that on April 4, 2024, the Individual had enrolled in an “online
Alcohol and Other Drugs Awareness course” (the Online Course). Ex. I at 1.
Exhibit J is a copy of an email chain from February 1, 2024, in which the Individual tried to obtain
PEth testing from her employer.
Exhibit K is a copy of a confirmation email for a PEth test requested by the Individual to be taken
on March 26, 2024.
Exhibit L is a completion certificate for the Online Course dated April 22, 2024.
Exhibit M is a “Urine Chain of Custody Form” indicating that a blood specimen had been obtained
from the Individual on April 29, 2024.
5
II. The Summary of Security Concerns (SSC)
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 her
eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Under Guideline G, the LSO cites the Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual
engages in habitual binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and the
Individual’s DUI 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 . . .
regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder” and “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point
of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(b), (c).
The LSO also invoked Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines, citing the
Individual’s failure to report her DUI arrest to the LSO as required by DOE Order 472.2A; the
Individual’s false statements in her LOI; and the Individual’s omissions of her cannabis use from
two QNSPs. This information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline E. Under
Guideline E, “[c]onduct 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. Among those conditions
set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern is the
“[d]eliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant facts from any personnel security
questionnaire, personal history statement, or similar form used to conduct investigations, . . .
determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary responsibilities” and
“deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information,
concerning relevant facts to a . . . competent medical or mental health professional involved in
making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination, or other official
government representative.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (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
6
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 their 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 she had attempted to self-report her DUI to the LSO on
July 6, 2023. Tr. at 15–16. However, she testified, her failure to report was unintentional, since
she had submitted the reporting form to the wrong email address. Tr. at 15. She further testified
that she had not received any indications that her email had not been delivered. Tr. at 15–16.
The Individual testified that she was presently enrolled in a three-month DUI program. Tr. at 18,
51–53. She noted that she had completed the alcohol education component of that program. Tr.
at 18. She testified that she started this three-month program in December 2023 and hopes to
complete it in June 2024. Tr. at 18, 53. The Individual is also presently enrolled in an online
therapy program to address her alcohol abuse, stress management, drug misuse, and anger
management. Tr. at 54. There is no interactive component to this therapy program. Tr. at 54–57.
The Individual testified that she intends to start receiving psychotherapy in the future. Tr. at 57.
The Individual testified that she had enrolled in an IOP but chose to discontinue that program when
her insurance provider denied her request for coverage on the grounds that it was not medically
necessary. Tr. at 18. She testified that she could not afford to pay for the IOP. Tr. at 18. Instead,
the Individual enrolled in a more affordable treatment program (ATP). Tr. at 18–19. She
completed the ATP, which required 24 hours. Tr. at 20. The Individual testified that she is
receiving pastoral counseling for her alcohol use, from the Pastor who prepared the letter appearing
in the record as Exhibit D. Tr. at 59. She took a PEth test on April 5, 2024. Ex. 62. The result of
this PEth test was positive. Tr. at 62. The level of PEth detected was “80.” Tr. at 81. She did not
submit this test into the record of this proceeding because it was positive. Tr. at 63. She took
another PEth test on April 29, 2024. 5 Tr. at 63. She last consumed alcohol ten days before the
hearing, when she attended a wine tasting and consumed several wine samples and a mimosa. Tr.
at 63–64, 69. The Individual admitted she keeps wine in her home and has not cancelled any of
her wine club memberships. Tr. at 64. When the DOE Counsel asked the Individual if she is
following the Psychologist’s recommendation for abstinence, the Individual stated: “Yes. I’m not
engaging in habitual binge drinking.” Tr. at 64–65. She then stated: “I don’t drink as much as I
used to.” Tr. at 65. She then stated that she is trying to completely abstain from alcohol use. Tr.
at 65. She then stated: “I am still working on it if I am being honest.” Tr. at 65. When she was
asked about her “future plans with respect to alcohol” the Individual replied with a lengthy and
confusing answer that did not indicate that she intends to permanently abstain from using alcohol.
Tr. at 65–67. When she was asked this question again, she stated: “To stay away from high-stress-
5 The Individual has not submitted the results of the April 29, 2024, PEth test.
7
level situations that would otherwise encourage me to drink.” Tr. at 67. The Individual was then
asked if she plans to continue to drink, to which she responded: “Not to binge, but to have alcohol
-- a glass. Yes.” Tr. at 67. She then admitted that she consumed more than a glass on the last two
occasions that she used alcohol. Tr. at 67. When the Individual was asked if she had a problem
with alcohol she stated: “I used to. I do not anymore.” Tr. at 68. In support of that assertion, she
stated that she is no longer bingeing and has reduced her consumption. Tr. at 68.
The Individual testified that on the night of her DUI, she went “overboard.” Tr. at 24. She ran
over metal debris on the freeway and ran into the retaining wall. Tr. at 25. She then “blew a .16
into the breath analyzer and was taken to jail.” Tr. at 25–26, 43. She attributed this accident in
part to her being very tired on that night. Tr. at 45. She testified that she had consumed about two
and-a-half ounces of wine at a tasting; then a glass of wine with dinner; and then two shots of
tequila and a glass of wine afterward. Tr. at 26. The Individual initially had no explanation for the
discrepancy between her reported alcohol consumption provided during the LOI and the CI. Tr.
at 27. The Individual eventually stated:
With the LOI I understand that I was under oath. I think at the time I was just trying
to gather my thoughts. I was a bit nervous filling out the LOI, but I hadn't thought
about the period of time in 2020 where I was drinking a little bit more than I
normally drank during the time I was in a bad relationship. It was just for a couple
months, if that, in 2020, where, of course, we were all in shelter in place, that I had
been drinking excessively with a partner. But it was such a short period, did not
mean to admit it, but I do -- I know sitting down with [the Psychologist] just gave
me some more time to really think about how much I had been drinking, and I was
honest with her about that.
Tr. at 28. She denied trying to put herself in a “good light” by providing inaccurate responses to
the LOI. Tr. at 28. She testified that she was more forthcoming in the CI because she was more
comfortable. Tr. at 28–29.
The Individual admitted that, during the CI, she had informed the Psychologist that her last use of
marijuana occurred in 2017. Tr. at 35. She further admitted that she had omitted her marijuana
use in 2017 from her 2018 and 2023 QNSPs. Tr. at 35. She claimed that these omissions occurred
because she had “misread the question.” Tr. at 35. She then claimed that she had thought the
question “said within a year,” when she filled out the QNSPs. Tr. at 35. The DOE Counsel then
asked “isn’t 2017 within a year of 2018?” Tr. at 35. The Individual responded by stating: “I didn’t
interpret it that way.” Tr. at 35. The Individual then claimed she told the Psychologist that her
use of marijuana did not continue past 2017, and then claimed her last use of marijuana occurred
in January 2017. Tr. at 36. She then claimed that her last use of marijuana occurred in 2016. Tr.
at 36.
The Psychologist testified after observing the Individual’s testimony. The Psychologist noted that
after her evaluation, she did not diagnose the Individual with an alcohol disorder. Tr. at 72–73.
Instead, she had concluded that the Individual had engaged in habitual binge drinking. Tr. at 73.
She noted that at the CI, the Individual had denied the symptoms that would have shown that she
met the criteria for AUD. Tr. at 74. However, the Psychologist stated that after observing the
Individual’s testimony, she is now of the opinion that the Individual meets the criteria for AUD.
8
Tr. at 74–75. In support of this conclusion, the Psychologist noted that the Individual testified that
she: (1) drinks more than she intended, (2) has experienced cravings and urges to consume alcohol,
(3) has unsuccessfully tried to reduce her alcohol consumption, (4) continues to engage in heavy
drinking despite the impact on her work and the legal and financial consequences, and (5)
continues to drink despite her knowledge of how it affects her stress and mood. Tr. at 75–76. The
Psychologist also noted that it appears that the Individual has developed a tolerance to alcohol. Tr.
at 76. The Psychologist noted that the Individual is not controlling her drinking, is consuming
more than she is intending, is experiencing a significant impact on her occupational and social
functioning, and that the Individual’s AUD is “really impacting [her] judgment.” Tr. at 78. She
noted that she does not believe that the Individual is reformed or rehabilitated. Tr. at 86. The
Psychologist opined that the Individual should abstain from using alcohol for at least one year to
demonstrate reformation or rehabilitation. Tr. at 90. Finally, the Psychologist opined:
I -- it sounds to me like she’s not able at this point with the resources that she has
to really manage that level of stress and would benefit quite a bit from receiving
individual interactive psychotherapy with a lens toward both managing her use of
alcohol and learning healthy ways, healthy and active ways, a whole cadre of ways
to manage stress and respond to it in a -- in an adaptive, healthy way.
Tr. at 79.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline E
As an initial matter, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns raised under
Guideline E by her failure to timely report her DUI to the LSO. The record shows that the
Individual tried to file her PSIRF with the LSO on July 6, 2023, but added an extra “s” to the email
address. Accordingly, I find that her failure to report was unintentional.
In contrast, I find that the record shows that the Individual intentionally failed to disclose her
cannabis use in both her 2018 and 2023 QNSPs. The QNSPs both clearly asked: “In the last
seven (7) years, have you illegally used any drugs or controlled substances?” The QNSPs both
used boldface font to emphasis the time period to which the question applied. Yet the Individual
prevaricated during the hearing by first claiming that she had misread the question and then
claiming that she thought that the question was only referring to any drug use that may have
occurred during the previous year.6 This prevarication indicates that the good judgment,
reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty exhibited by the Individual during the CI when she self-
reported her cannabis use to the Psychologist was short lived. Accordingly, I am convinced that
the Individual intentionally omitted her cannabis use from both QNSPs and then continued to
exhibit a lack of judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty at the hearing by providing
deliberately misleading testimony.
6 I note that the Individual has received advanced degrees from two prestigious universities and is employed in perhaps
the most intellectually challenging of professions.
9
The Individual’s lack of judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty was not limited to her
omissions of her cannabis use. Throughout this proceeding, the Individual has provided
conflicting and contradictory information about her alcohol consumption. It is possible that the
Individual’s provision of false information relating to her alcohol use is symptomatic of her AUD.
Moreover, the Individual’s lack of candor about her alcohol use is often interrupted by the
Individual’s frank honesty about her drinking, perhaps indicative of her inner struggles with her
alcohol issue. Since, as I will discuss below, the Individual’s alcohol issues remain a concern, the
Individual cannot be relied upon to provide accurate and complete information to DOE security.
Moreover, the Individual’s lack of candor concerning her cannabis use suggests her lack of
judgment, reliability, trustworthiness, and honesty extends beyond matters concerning her alcohol
use.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth seven factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E, four of which are relevant to the present case.7 First, the Adjudicative Guidelines
provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under Guideline E if they “made prompt,
good-faith efforts to correct the omission, concealment, or falsification before being confronted
with the facts.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(a). In the present case, the Individual did exhibit
good faith by admitting her cannabis use during her CI. However, her cannabis omissions date
back as far as 2018, so her admission does not qualify as prompt. Moreover, as discussed above,
the Individual’s lack of candor continued at the hearing, when her testimony concerning her
omissions from the QNSP was not credible. Accordingly, I find that the mitigating condition set
forth at ¶ 17(a) is not present in the instant case.
Second, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline E if “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” and “[u]pon being made aware of the requirement to cooperate or provide the
information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(b). In
the present case, there is no evidence in the record indicating that the Individual’s omissions were
caused or contributed to by the advice of legal counsel or some other professional. Accordingly, I
find that the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 17(b) is not present in the instant case.
Third, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E if “[t]he 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.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 17(c). In the present case, the security concerns raised by Individual’s omission of
her cannabis use from her QNSPs were compounded by her contradictory and difficult to believe
testimony at her hearing, therefore casting doubt on her present trustworthiness, reliability, and
judgment.8 Accordingly, I find that the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 17(c) is not present in
the instant case.
7 The remaining mitigating factors under Guideline E, set forth at ¶ 17(e), (f), and (g), apply to circumstances other
than the deliberate omission of information during the security clearance process.
8 During the hearing, the Individual did not address the inconsistencies in her reporting of her alcohol consumption.
10
Fourth, the Adjudicative Guidelines provide that an individual may mitigate security concerns
under Guideline E if “[t]he 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.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶17(d). In the present case, the Individual has not
acknowledged that she was intentionally attempting to conceal her cannabis use by omitting it
from her QNSPs or that she intentionally minimized her alcohol consumption in her LOI response.
Accordingly, I find that the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 17(d) is not present in the instant
case.
For these reasons, I conclude that the Individual has not resolved the Guideline E security concerns
raised by the omission of her cannabis use from two QNSPs and her provision of inaccurate
information concerning her alcohol use in her LOI. The Individual has, however, resolved any
concerns arising from her failure to timely report her DUI to the LSO by showing that her failure
to report was unintentional.
B. Guideline G
The Individual’s DUI and habitual binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment
have raised serious security concerns under Guideline G. Instead of resolving these issues, the
Individual’s hearing testimony revealed that the Individual’s alcohol issues are more serious than
the Psychologist originally found. The Individual did not fully comply with the Psychologist’s
treatment recommendations and has not utilized any sufficient alternatives. Most importantly, the
Individual continues to use alcohol in an uncontrolled manner and does not seem to fully realize
the true extent of her alcohol problem, although she appears to be beginning to gain that
recognition. Nevertheless, she alternates between candor about her alcohol consumption and
evasion and prevarication when discussing her relationship with alcohol.
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four conditions 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
Guidelines at ¶ 23(a). In the present case, as noted above, the Individual continues to consume
alcohol. 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
fully acknowledged the extent of her alcohol problem. While the Individual provided evidence
that she participated in two online alcohol education programs, these programs do not appear to
be of sufficient intensity or effectiveness to overcome the Individual’s alcohol problem. Moreover,
the Individual continues to consume alcohol and intends to continue doing so going forward.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(b).
11
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 has not been
participating in an alcohol treatment program, but rather has attended an online education program
and a DUI school. Moreover, the record shows that these programs have not been effective since
the Individual has not been abstaining from alcohol use and does not intend to do so. Accordingly,
I find the Individual has not satisfied the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(c).
Finally, 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). In the present case, as noted above, the Individual has not attended any
alcohol treatment program, except an IOP which she started but did not complete. Moreover, she
has not established a pattern of abstinence from alcohol since she 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 Individual’s alcohol-related conduct under
Guideline G have not been resolved.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E and
Guideline G. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
commonsense manner, I find that the Individual has not mitigated all of the security concerns
raised under Guidelines E and G. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring
her 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