PSH-24-0029

*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 14, 2023 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0029
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 8, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (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 him to hold a security
clearance. On January 11, 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged with two offenses: (1)
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) Driving While Under the Influence of Liquor (Impairment) (1st)
and (2) Speeding (36 and Over). Exhibit (Ex.) 11 at 65–66.2 According to the citation, the
Individual’s vehicle was stopped for speeding, and an odor of alcoholic beverage was detected by
the police officer. Ex. 10 at 59. The Individual performed poorly on a field sobriety test, and when
a breathalyzer test was administered, his blood alcohol concentration (BAC) was recorded as 0.14
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 The exhibits submitted by DOE, with one exception, were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page.
This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE. The one exception is
Exhibit 12, which was submitted as a separate PDF and contains no Bates numbering. When citing to Exhibit 12, this
Decision will refer to the PDF page numbers.
- 2 -
g/210L and 0.13 g/210L. Id. The following day, the Individual appeared in court, and the charges
were dismissed without prejudice.3 Ex. 11 at 66.
The arrest was reported to the Local Security Office (LSO), whereupon the Individual was asked
to respond to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI). Ex. 10 at 56; Ex. 11 at 65. In his response to the LOI,
dated March 3, 2021, the Individual indicated that he had consumed “3 IPA drinks” prior to the
arrest. Ex. 13 at 112. As a result of the incident, the Individual stated, his employer required him
to undergo a Fitness for Duty (FFD) evaluation and take alcohol classes. Id. at 79. Prior to the
arrest, the Individual stated, his pattern of alcohol consumption was “a couple of times in a month”
with friends. Id. at 80. In the two months since the arrest, however, he had not consumed any
alcohol at all. Id. “I have learned since my incident,” he stated, “[I] will never drive after a drink.”
Id. at 81.
On November 20, 2022, the Individual was arrested and charged with Aggravated Driving While
Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquor or Drugs (Refused Testing) and Failure to Stop at Stop
Sign. Ex. 6 at 30. According to the Criminal Complaint, the arresting officer stopped the
Individual’s vehicle after observing him fail to yield at a stop sign. Id. The officer smelled “an
intense odor of alcoholic beverage coming from within the vehicle” and “an obvious odor of
alcoholic beverage on [the Individual’s] breath.” Id. After performing “poorly” on the field
sobriety tests, the Individual was arrested and driven to the police station. Id. At the station, a
breath test was administered. Id. The results were “an insufficient sample.” Id. According to the
officer, the Individual “was allowing the air to pass through his lips, around the mouthpiece, and
not into the machine.” Id.
The Individual promptly reported the arrest to the LSO. Id. at 27. In his Personnel Security
Information Report, the Individual provided his account of the arrest. Id. According to the
Individual, when the officer “asked me to get out of the car and asked if I was drinking and that he
smelled alcohol in the car I said ‘no I wasn’t’ this was 3AM or 4AM in the morning I was exhausted
and delusional.” Id. The Individual further claimed that when he submitted to a breath test, the
result showed 0.00, but in fact “the result came out as insufficient and I didn’t know.” Id.
Thereafter, the Individual reported, he was booked “for an aggravated DWI for refusing the test.”
Id.
The LSO asked the Individual to respond to another LOI, which he completed on February 17,
2023. Ex. 12. In this LOI, the Individual reaffirmed his account of the November 2022 arrest,
including that he told the arresting officer he had not been drinking. Id. at 2. When asked how
much alcohol he had consumed prior to the arrest, the Individual responded, “None.” Id. When
asked a series of further questions about his alcohol consumption that day, the Individual
responded “N/A” to each question. Id. at 3. The Individual reported that, subsequent to the arrest,
his employer referred him for another FFD evaluation, he was subject to ethylglucuronide (EtG)
and breathalyzer tests every day (none of which had come back positive), he was required see a
substance abuse professional, and he was taking alcohol classes. Id. at 5. When asked to describe
his regular pattern of alcohol consumption, the Individual reported that he typically consumed
three to four beers with friends on “some weekends.” Id. at 7. This pattern had been consistent, he
3 The Individual later acknowledged, during a clinical interview with a DOE-contracted psychologist, that he “‘got
lucky’ that the charge was dismissed because the courts were backed up.” Ex. 14 at 88.
- 3 -
stated, for approximately nine years. Id. He asserted that his last consumption of alcohol occurred
“[p]robably sometime in November [2022].” Id. at 8. When asked if he felt like he had a problem
with alcohol, he responded, “No, I do not feel like I have an issue with alcohol.” Id. at 10. In the
future, he stated, “I would like to keep alcohol at a low consumption on occasion,” and “I do not
intend to drive if I consumed alcohol . . . .” Id. at 11.
On June 9, 2023, the Individual reported to the LSO that he was found guilty of the charges
stemming from the November 2022 arrest. Ex. 3 at 19. The Individual’s sentence entailed four
days of confinement, 24 hours of community service, and one year of unsupervised probation. Ex.
8 at 45. The conditions of the Individual’s probation included, among other requirements, meeting
with the County Substance, Treatment, Outreach, and Prevention Program (C-STOP) within seven
days and maintaining contact as instructed. Id.
On June 15, 2023, the Individual sent an email to the LSO admitting for the first time that on the
night of his November 2022 arrest, he had drunk three shots of tequila within 30 minutes. Ex. 5 at
24. As to why he hadn’t reported this when asked on the February 2023 LOI, the Individual
claimed that he “misunderstood the question.” Id.
A DOE-contracted psychologist (Psychologist) conducted a two-and-a-half-hour clinical interview
of the Individual on August 2, 2023, and prepared a Psychological Assessment (Report)
documenting her findings and conclusions.4 Ex. 14. The Report describes the Individual’s account
of the events surrounding his November 2022 arrest. Id. at 86. According to the Individual, he was
driving his friend home from a casino, and at one point, he was texting and asked his friend to
“take the wheel.” Id. That was when he drove past the stop sign, which led to the police officer
pulling him over. Id. The Individual acknowledged to the Psychologist that he had consumed three
shots of tequila during the 30 minutes he spent at the casino. Id. Since the November 2022 arrest,
the Individual affirmed, he had not consumed any alcohol at all. Id. This affirmation was supported
by the negative result of the PEth test administered on the day of the clinical interview. Id. at 90.
The Individual expressed to the Psychologist that he wanted to “cut out alcohol completely.” Id.
at 89.
In her Report, the Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Unspecified Alcohol-Related
Disorder, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
Text Revision (DSM-V-TR). Id. at 90. She based this diagnosis on the following: the Individual’s
history of binge drinking; the Individual’s two DWI arrests in less than two years; and the
Individual’s pattern of dishonesty concerning his alcohol use.5 To demonstrate rehabilitation, the
4 In addition to the information obtained from the clinical interview, the Psychologist based her Report on her review
of the Individual’s Personnel Security File and the results of psychological testing—specifically the Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3, which the Psychologist administered to the Individual at the time of his
interview. Ex. 14 at 86. Immediately following the interview, the Psychologist had the Individual undergo a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which “detects any significant alcohol use over the past three to four weeks.” Id. at
90.
5 According to the Report, this pattern of dishonesty included the Individual’s repeated failure to admit that he had
been drinking the night of the November 2022 arrest, until he finally came clean on June 15, 2023. Id. at 90. The
Psychologist also questioned the Individual’s report that he drank only three beers on the night of his January 2021
- 4 -
Psychologist opined, the Individual would need to abstain from alcohol for a period of at least one
year and attend alcohol rehabilitation counseling with both individual and group components. Id.
at 90–91. Alternatively, she stated, he could attend meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or a
similar evidence-based treatment approach at least three times weekly, obtain the support of a
sponsor, and document his attendance and participation. Id. at 91. To provide evidence of
abstinence, she opined, the Individual should undergo at least six PEth tests. Id.
On October 17, 2023, the LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a
security clearance. Ex. 1. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted 16 exhibits (Ex. 1–16). The Individual submitted eight exhibits (Ex.
A–H). At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of his
mother, his stepfather, his Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor, his C-STOP counselor,
and his manager at work. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0029 (Tr.) at 12, 25, 40, 66
89, 96. The LSO offered the testimony of the Psychologist.6 Id. at 135.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E as the first basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible
for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5.
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. According to the LSO, the behavior that gave rise to the Guideline
E concerns were the Individual’s failure on three occasions to admit that he consumed alcohol
prior to the November 2022 arrest: on the February 2023 LOI, on his November 2022 report to the
LSO, and to the police officer at the scene of the arrest. Ex. 1 at 5. This allegation justifies the
LSO’s invocation of Guideline E. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a), (b).
arrest. Id. at 88, 90. Based on the Individual’s BAC at the time of the arrest, she opined, it was “highly probable” that
he “significantly” underreported the amount of alcohol he had consumed. Id.
6 The parties stipulated to the expert qualifications of the Psychologist, the EAP counselor, and the C-STOP counselor,
and on that basis, I allowed each of these witnesses to provide expert opinion testimony in their respective professional
fields. Tr. at 9–10. Further, on the agreement of the parties, the Psychologist was present at the hearing to observe the
testimony of all the other witnesses prior to giving her own testimony.
- 5 -
The LSO cited Guideline G as the second basis for its determination that the Individual was
ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. “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. According to the
LSO, the factors that gave rise to the Guideline G concerns were (1) the Psychologist’s
determination that the Individual meets the DSM-V-TR criteria for a diagnosis of Unspecified
Alcohol-Related Disorder, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and (2) the
Individual’s two DWI arrests on November 20, 2022, and January 11, 2021. Ex. 1 at 5–6. These
allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a),
(d).
The LSO cited Guideline J as the third basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible
for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6. “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness. 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.
According to the LSO, the events that gave rise to the Guideline J concerns were the Individual’s
two DWI arrests, including the that the Individual was found guilty and sentenced to four days of
confinement, 24 hours of community service, and one year of probation in connection with the
November 2022 incident. Ex. 1 at 6. These allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
J. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 31(a), (b), (c).
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
Dep’t 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. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
- 6 -
IV. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual’s mother and stepfather testified that the Individual lived with them from childhood
until one year prior to the hearing. Tr. at 12–13, 27. They both testified that, in all their years living
with the Individual, they never saw him drink in their house, they were unaware of the Individual’s
alcohol consumption outside of the house, and they were surprised to learn about the Individual’s
DWI arrest in January 2021. Id. at 17, 20–21, 30, 33–34. The stepfather indicated that he was
“proud” of the Individual for admitting to the LSO that he had been untruthful about his alcohol
consumption prior to the November 2022 arrest. Id. at 16. Similarly, the mother said she
“supported” the Individual’s decision to come clean. Id. at 29. Both the mother and stepfather
asserted the Individual had lied because he was afraid of losing his job, but that it was not in his
character to be dishonest. Id. at 16, 29. They both attested to his trustworthiness and dependability.
Id. at 18–19, 32–33.
The Individual’s manager testified that he has known the Individual for seven years, first as a
student-mentee and now as an employee. Id. at 90. He described the Individual as a “very good
worker” and someone who is reliable and trustworthy. Id. at 91–92; see also Ex. C–D (copies of
the Individual’s performance appraisals, a spot award, and promotion justification reflecting the
Individual’s notable job performance from 2021 to present).
The Individual’s EAP counselor testified that she leads a six-week class entitled Alcohol
Awareness and Education, which consists of one-hour-and-fifteen-minute sessions every Thursday
afternoon, where participants “explore their own relationship to alcohol.” Tr. at 42, 53-55. She
stated that the Individual successfully completed this class two times: once in early 2021 after his
first DWI arrest, and again in early 2023 after the second DWI arrest. Id. at 42–44; Ex. B
(Certificate of Completion dated March 9, 2023, certifying that the Individual successfully
completed the Alcohol Awareness and Education class). In November 2023, the EAP counselor
testified, the Individual began attending her 12-week Maintaining Changes class,7 which she
described as “kind of a support group” that meets every Thursday afternoon for one hour and
fifteen minutes. Tr. at 57-59. The Individual successfully completed this class in February 2024.
Id. at 45; Ex. G (Certificate of Completion dated February 1, 2024, certifying that the Individual
successfully completed the Making Changes in Alcohol Use class). The EAP counselor testified
that the Individual benefited from the Maintaining Changes class, that he found helpful the
feedback he received from other participants, and that he expressed to her that he wants to continue
with the class. Tr. at 47–48; 58. She described the Individual as becoming “more comfortable and
open and interactive” over the course of the 12-week class. Id. at 48.
The EAP counselor testified that, in addition to the classes, she has met with the Individual on four
occasions for one-on-one counseling. Id. at 59. At their first counseling session in July 2023, the
Individual confided to the EAP counselor that he had lied about his alcohol consumption and stated
that “it was eating him alive” and “he was very ashamed of himself.” Id. at 60. The Individual has
told her, she testified, that he is abstinent from alcohol, that he is avoiding the friends with whom
he used to “party,” and that he is saving money to buy a house. Id. at 49. She testified that the
7 The EAP counselor testified that Maintaining Changes is the new name for the class, which used to be entitled
Making Changes in Alcohol Use: Action to Maintenance. Tr. at 44–45. The certificate of completion still carries the
prior class name. Id. at 45; see Ex. G.
- 7 -
Individual has been undergoing “an enormous amount of stress and worry,” but has not turned to
alcohol as a way to cope. Id. at 50. With regard to future alcohol use, she testified, the Individual
has expressed that he wants to completely abstain. Id. at 51. When asked about his prognosis, the
EAP counselor testified, “I think it’s very good.” Id. at 52.
The Individual’s C-STOP counselor testified that he was “one of [the Individual’s] group
facilitators and the person overseeing his case [at C-STOP].” Id. at 67. In August 2023, the
counselor explained, the Individual admitted himself into an intensive outpatient program (IOP)
at C-STOP, which is a 90-day program that consists of three group sessions and one individual
counseling session every week. Id. at 67-68. The counselor confirmed that the Individual attended
each and every session, was very engaged in his treatment, and made significant progress. Id. at
68; 74–75. After successfully completing the IOP, the counselor testified, the Individual began the
aftercare program. Id. at 75–76. Although only required to attend one aftercare session per month,
the Individual has done so twice a month, and plans to continue attending. Id. at 79–80. Among
the skills the Individual has been working to develop are effective communication skills, distress
tolerance, mindfulness training, and getting more regular exercise. Id. at 69–72. According to the
counselor, the Individual performs a breathalyzer test every time he attends a C-STOP session,
and all have come back negative for the presence of alcohol. Id. at 73. The C-STOP counselor
opined that the Individual has a “favorable” prognosis, given his successful completion of the IOP,
his dedication to his treatment, and the honesty and integrity he has exhibited. Id. at 78.
The Individual testified about the events surrounding his two DWI arrests. Regarding the arrest in
January 2021, he stated he had consumed three “strong” beers prior to driving and was then pulled
over for speeding. Id. at 126. He testified that he thought “he felt fine to drive.” Id. at 127. He
admitted that he had done poorly on the field sobriety tests, but claimed, “I don’t have good
balance, and it was cold that night too.” Id. After the arrest, the Individual testified, he stopped
drinking for several months, before starting up again sometime in the second half of 2021. Id. at
128–29. Regarding the arrest in November 2022, the Individual acknowledged that he drank three
shots of tequila in 30 minutes before driving a mile to his friend’s house. Id. at 129. He further
acknowledged that he ran a stop sign because he was texting while his friend held the steering
wheel. Id. at 129. “I know it wasn’t the smartest thing,” he said. Id.
The Individual admitted that he lied at least three times about his alcohol consumption that led to
the November 2022 DWI arrest. Id. at 116–18. He lied to the police officer at the scene of the
arrest, he lied to his FFD case manager at their initial meeting in January 2023, and he lied on the
February 2023 LOI he submitted to the LSO. Id. The Individual ultimately came clean to the FFD
case manager around May or June 2023. Id. at 118–19. When asked why it took so long, he stated
that he was “scared.” Id. at 119. He said it took “everything inside of me to call her and tell her
that I lied, because I hate disappointing people.” Id. at 120. Similarly, the Individual sent an email
to the LSO on June 15, 2023, in which he corrected his lie, because he felt it “was the right thing
to do.” Id. at 98, 121. Even in that email, however, he was not entirely truthful, because he told the
LSO he didn’t understand the question on the February 2023 LOI. Id. at 122. At the hearing, the
Individual admitted, “I did [understand the question], and I just didn’t know how to come forward.”
Id. He testified that in the future, he will definitely “come forward with the truth, no matter how
horrible I think it would make me look, no matter how horrible it would make me sound. I’ll just
come up front. This has been a total learning experience for me.” Id. at 123.
- 8 -
The Individual testified that he decided to stop all alcohol consumption in November 2022,
because getting his clearance back was “way more important to [him] than drinking any kind of
alcohol.” Id. at 100. He testified that he doesn’t want to drink any more, he doesn’t have any
cravings for alcohol, and “everyone” is supportive of his sobriety. Id. His abstinence is
corroborated, he asserted, by the negative EtG tests his employer required him to take beginning
in January 2023. Id. at 101–02; Ex. A (documentation confirming the negative results of 22 EtG
tests administered to the Individual between January and November 2023). He also underwent four
monthly PEth tests, at his own cost, all of which yielded negative results. Tr. at 102–03; Ex. A, E
(documentation of the negative results of four PEth tests administered to the Individual between
November 2023 and February 2024). He stated that, through his counseling with C-STOP and the
EAP, he has come to understand that the risks of alcohol consumption outweigh the benefits. Tr.
at 101. The IOP, he testified, taught him how to cope with stress by keeping “busy with healthy
outlets.” Id. at 109–10. It also taught him how to cope with anxiety by using breathing and
relaxation techniques, and how to manage worries by not overthinking. Id. at 110. The Individual
indicated that his triggers are “hanging out with friends that drink” and “boredom.” Id. at 111. He
avoids those triggers by spending time with family and friends that don’t drink, going to the
movies, going shopping, and playing video games. Id. The Individual further testified that he has
participated in SMART Recovery,8 and has completed all five stages of the program:
contemplation, preparation, action, maintenance, and exit. Id. at 111–13. He testified as to all the
ways his life has benefitted from abstinence, including by reducing the risk of legal trouble and
losing his job, improving his relationship with his family, and feeling better and healthier. Id. at
113–14. Since abstaining from alcohol, he asserted, he is more clear-minded, his life is better, and
he has grown as a person. Id. at 114. He enjoys the aftercare sessions at C-STOP and the individual
sessions with his EAP counselor, and he plans to continue both. Id. at 124.
The Psychologist testified that, based on all the exhibits and testimony presented in the hearing,
the Individual has met or exceeded all of her recommendations to demonstrate rehabilitation or
reformation from his Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Id. at 138–139. The one exception
she noted was that the Individual had provided evidence of only five negative PEth tests9 instead
of six, but this exception did not alter her opinion, particularly because he has shown evidence of
22 negative EtG tests since January 2023. Id. She was impressed that both of his counselors gave
him a positive prognosis, that he came clean regarding his alcohol use prior to the November 2022
arrest in order to clear his conscience, and that he was committed to being honest going forward.
Id. at 139–40. Ultimately, she concluded, the Individual no longer meets the diagnosis for
Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Id. at 140–41.
V. ANALYSIS
The Individual admits to the factual allegations contained in the SSC, but he seeks to mitigate the
security concerns raised by the LSO. Ex. 2 at 13–14.
8 The Psychologist identified SMART Recovery as one of the “evidence-based treatment approaches” that would serve
as an alternative to AA.
9 The five PEth tests she referred to include the four the Individual paid for himself, and the one that the Individual
underwent as part of the psychological evaluation. Tr. at 138–39.
- 9 -
A. Guideline E
Conditions that may mitigate security concerns under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) 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.
As an initial matter, the mitigating factors at paragraph (b), (e), (f), and (g) are inapplicable to the
facts of this case. The LSO has not alleged any vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress, nor do the LSO’s concerns involve the association with persons involved in criminal
activities. Moreover, the Individual has not claimed that his false statements were given on the
advice of legal counsel or other professional, but rather he has admitted to his dishonest behavior.
The Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraph (a).
The Individual’s failure to admit that he consumed alcohol prior to the November 2022 arrest was
reaffirmed on multiple occasions, to the arresting officer, to the LSO, and to his FFD case manager.
His eventual decision to correct the falsification, via an email to the LSO in June 2023, was
certainly not prompt. Nor was it made entirely in good-faith. Even in his June 2023 email, he
insisted that his mis-statement on the February 2023 LOI was because he misunderstood the
question—not because, as he admitted at the hearing, he was scared to tell the truth. As such, I
cannot find that the Individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct his falsification.
- 10 -
Similarly, the Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions of paragraph (c).
Failing to provide truthful answers during a national security investigation is not a minor offense,
but one that raises “special interest” and “will normally result in an unfavorable national security
eligibility determination.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. In this case, the offense persisted over
a period of seven months and lasted until just eight months prior to the hearing. As such, the
Individual’s false statements are not mitigated by the passage of time or the infrequency of the
behavior, and nor are there any unique circumstances that make his behavior unlikely to recur.
Despite the foregoing, I find the Individual has provided sufficient evidence to mitigate his
behavior under the conditions of paragraph (d). The Individual has stated unequivocally that his
dishonesty was wrong. At the hearing, he insisted he has learned from the experience and will
never again conceal the truth from security clearance personnel. The Individual has openly
acknowledged his dishonesty in both his group and one-on-one sessions with the EAP counselor,
and she testified persuasively as to the remorse he has expressed. The C-STOP counselor similarly
praised the Individual’s honesty and authenticity during his IOP and aftercare sessions. And the
Individual’s mother and stepfather stated they support and encourage the Individual to be truthful.
I believe that through counseling and self-reflection, the Individual has successfully changed his
behavior and outlook, and as a result, his dishonesty is unlikely to recur.
B. Guideline G
Conditions that may mitigate security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
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; 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.
The Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (a) or
(b). With regard to paragraph (a), because the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption
occurred largely uninterrupted for nine years, up until as recently as November 2022, I cannot find
that it is mitigated by the passage of time, the infrequency of the conduct, or any unusual
circumstances under which it occurred. With regard to paragraph (b), I am not persuaded that the
- 11 -
Individual has fully acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use. The Individual’s
decision to remain abstinent, he explained, was driven mostly by a desire to stay out of legal and
financial trouble. Moreover, he continues to insist that he was “fine to drive” on the night of the
January 2021 DWI arrest, when his BAC was recorded as 0.14 g/210L and 0.13 g/210L, well
above the legal limit.
Nonetheless, I find the Individual advanced sufficient evidence to mitigate the Guideline G
concerns pursuant to paragraphs (c) and (d). With regard to paragraph (c), the Individual completed
a 90-day IOP in November 2023. Currently, he participates in twice monthly aftercare sessions,
weekly support group meetings through his EAP, and periodic counseling sessions with his EAP
counselor, all of which he plans to continue. The Individual has no previous history of treatment
and relapse,10 and both the C-STOP and EAP counselors testified convincingly as to his
satisfactory progress. They have observed him grow and mature, and they have seen him become
more honest and open. Both counselors opined that his prognosis is positive.
With regard to paragraph (d), the Individual has successfully completed the IOP, the Alcohol
Awareness and Education class, and the Maintaining Changes class, and he continues to attend
both the Maintaining Changes class and aftercare sessions at C-STOP. He has demonstrated a clear
and established pattern of abstinence, supported not only by his own testimony that he has
abstained from alcohol consumption since November 2022, but also by the negative results of five
PEth tests taken since August 2023, 22 EtG tests taken since January 2023, and dozens of negative
breathalyzer tests administered by C-STOP. The Psychologist affirmed that the Individual has met
or exceeded all of the treatment recommendations she set forth in her Report, and she found that
he no longer meets the diagnosis for Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder.
Finally, as to the LSO’s concerns associated with the Individual’s DWI arrests in 2021 and 2022,
those concerns are no longer present in light of the Individual’s success in resolving his alcohol
misuse. Because the Individual is reformed and rehabilitated from his alcohol-related condition,
his DWI arrests are unlikely to recur.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that may mitigate security concerns under Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) 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
10 The Individual did previously abstain from alcohol for several months following the January 2021 DWI arrest and
his first successful completion of the Alcohol Awareness and Education class, only to resume alcohol consumption in
the second half of 2021. But unlike the Individual’s short-lived abstinence in 2021, the Individual’s current 15-month
period of abstinence is underpinned by his completion of the IOP, his formation of a support network, his demonstrated
behavioral changes, and his stated commitment to maintain abstinence indefinitely. For that reason, I do not consider
the Individual’s relapse in 2021 to discredit the progress he has made since his November 2022 arrest.
- 12 -
(d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance
with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
The Individual has demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (a) and
(d). The Individual’s two criminal arrests were tied directly to his alcohol consumption. Because
the Individual has demonstrated rehabilitation from his alcohol-related disorder and resolved the
LSO’s alcohol-related concerns, as described above, he has removed the circumstances that gave
rise to his criminal behavior. Thus, I find, the criminal behavior is unlikely recur.
Regarding paragraphs (b) and (c), the Individual has not alleged that his criminal behavior was a
result of pressure or coercion, and he has admitted to committing the criminal acts. As such,
these mitigating conditions are not applicable.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline E, Guideline G, and Guideline J of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and
unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all 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.
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals