PSH-24-0050

*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.
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: January 18, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0050
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 8, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should be granted.
I. Background
A DOE Contractor employs the Individual in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. As part of the clearance process, the Individual signed and submitted a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in April 2023. Exhibit (Ex.) 10. In the
QNSP, the Individual disclosed the fact that he was arrested for Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
in April 2023. Id. at 30–31. The Individual subsequently underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview
(ESI), which was conducted by an investigator in May 2023. Ex. 11.
In July 2023, the Individual signed and submitted a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) at the behest of
the Local Security Office (LSO). Ex. 7. The LSO subsequently instructed the Individual to undergo
a psychological evaluation conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in
September 2023. Ex. 8. That same month, the DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report),
which indicated that he diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 8.
Due to unresolved security concerns, the LSO began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a letter (Notification Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.
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
In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter informed the Individual 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.
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 Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of five other witnesses. See Transcript of
Hearing, Case No. PSH-24-0050 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). He also submitted four exhibits,
marked as Exhibit A through D. The DOE Counsel presented the testimony of one witness, the
DOE Psychologist, and submitted eleven exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 11.
II. Notification Letter
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance.
That information pertains to Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. 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 “[a]lcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence, . . . regardless of frequency
of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use
disorder[,]” and “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of
alcohol use disorder[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d).
The LSO alleged that following a psychological evaluation in September 2023, the DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Mild, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 1. The LSO also alleged that the Individual was charged
with DWI in April 2023, and that he had admitted to consuming “eight beers and two shots of
liquor prior to the arrest.” Id.
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 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).
3
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
On the day of the April 2023 DWI, the Individual consumed his first alcoholic beverage around
noon, about an hour prior to meeting a friend for drinks. Ex. 7 at 1. He proceeded to spend four-
and-a-half hours at a bar with his friend, and during that time, he consumed approximately six to
eight beers and two shots of alcohol.2 Ex. 11 at 56; Ex. 7 at 1, 9. The friends decided to go to a
second location, and each drove his own car to get there. Ex. 11 at 56; Ex. 7 at 1. On his way to
the second location, the Individual decided to go home instead, and as he “turned down his
residential street, he made the turn too fast[.]” Ex. 11 at 56; Ex. 7 at 1. As a result, he struck a curb,
lost control of the car, and “ran into a . . . truck.” Ex. 11 at 56; Ex. 7 at 1. When law enforcement
responded to the scene, the Individual was arrested after refusing to submit to a breath test or any
field sobriety tests.3 Ex. 11 at 56. At the time he was arrested, approximately one hour had elapsed
since his last drink. Ex 7 at 2.
The Individual stated in his LOI that he had not consumed alcohol since the April 2023 incident.
Ex. 7 at 6–7, 9. Prior to the April DWI arrest, he would “consume alcohol on Fridays and
Saturdays[,] unless [he] needed to work the next day.” Ex. 7 at 7; Ex. 11 at 56; Ex. 8 at 3. His
consumption typically consisted of six to eight light beers on weekends, and this pattern of
consumption began in 2013.4 Ex. 7 at 7; Ex. 8 at 3. He did, however, reduce his consumption when
he was first employed by the contractor in March 2023, and the last time he consumed alcohol
prior to the incident, he consumed “[a]pproximately [eight] beers in [seven] hours.” Ex. 7 at 7–9.
The Individual stated in the LOI that at the time he was drinking, six light beers were sufficient to
for him to become intoxicated, and that in the period prior to the DWI, he would become
intoxicated one to two times per week. Id. at 8, 10. He also indicated that he does not intend to
consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 10.
The DOE Psychologist indicated in his Report that he was informed of the precipitating April 2023
DWI and the Individual’s history of alcohol consumption, and the Individual told him that since
completing an Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP), he gained an understanding of how his
alcohol consumption was not “normal.” Ex. 8 at 3–4. Previously, the Individual never believed
2 In total, the Individual consumed “approximately [ten] alcoholic beverages” prior to his arrest. Ex. 7 at 1, 7–8.
3 Although the Individual had not yet been granted an access authorization, he reported the incident to the Security
Office, causing his badge to be revoked. Tr. at 67; Ex. 6 at 1.
4 The investigator’s report indicates that the Individual stated that would consume a twelve pack of beer every
weekend. Ex. 11 at 56.
4
that his consumption was problematic and denied any previous attempts in “cut[ting] down on his
drinking[.]” Id. at 4. He told the DOE Psychologist that his goal is “total abstinence.” Id. at 5. The
Individual underwent a PEth test in conjunction with the evaluation, the results of which were
negative. Id. at 6. The DOE Psychologist also consulted with the Individual’s one-on-one therapist,
who indicated that the Individual previously “lacked insight into the consequences of his alcohol
use[,]” and that he has had a “positive impact on his peers in the [IOP].” Id. at 7. He stated his
belief to the DOE Psychologist that the Individual is sincere in his desire to remain abstinent. Id.
The DOE Psychologist concluded in his Report that the Individual suffers from AUD, Mild, in
early remission. Id. The DOE Psychologist stated that for the Individual to show adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation, he recommends the Individual continue with aftercare for six
months, attend a weekly Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) group, engage a sponsor, and remain
abstinent for an additional six months and verify his abstinence with monthly PEth testing. Id. at
7–8.
In April 2023, the Individual engaged his current one-on-one therapist for a substance abuse
evaluation and was subsequently referred to an IOP, which he started in June 2023. Ex. 11 at 56;
Ex. 7 at 5; Tr. at 68. The Individual voluntarily completed an online DWI education program in
May 2023. Ex. C; Tr. at 80–81. From July 2023 through April 2024, the Individual voluntarily
submitted to ten monthly Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) tests, all of which were negative.5 Ex. A; Ex.
D; Tr. at 83–84. He completed the IOP in August 2023. Ex. B; Tr. at 68–69. He believes that the
IOP allowed him to “identify the problem[,]” “develop[] a plan, identify[] triggers, and [come] up
with ways to get out of situations that [he] should not put [himself] into.” Tr. at 70. Following the
completion of the IOP, the Individual immediately started the aftercare program, which he
continues to attend on Mondays. Id. at 68–69. He indicated that he intends to continue attending
weekly aftercare in the future. Id. at 71. In December 2023, the Individual began regularly
attending AA and recovery meetings at a church. Id. at 71–72. Although he continues to attend
AA meetings every Thursday, he stopped attending the church recovery meetings after two
months, as he felt greater camaraderie with AA attendees. Id. at 72–73. He intends to continue
attending AA meetings in the future. Id. at 79. In January 2024, the Individual began biweekly
one-on-one therapy, which became monthly sessions in March 2024. Id. at 79–80, 91.
The Individual’s mother, with whom the Individual resides, testified that the Individual feels that
rehabilitating himself is a form of restitution, and that he has gained “insight as how the alcohol
affects him[.]” Tr. at 18–21. She has no reason to believe that the Individual is consuming alcohol.
Id. at 21–22, 25–26.
The Individual’s brother-in-law, who retrieved the Individual from the detention center following
the arrest, testified that the Individual immediately began investigating ways to mitigate the
situation. Id. at 53–56. Accordingly, the Individual began attending various “classes and groups,”
and even passed on family vacations to attend these “classes and groups.” Id. at 56–57. They spent
time together with their extended family through the holidays, and although others were drinking
alcohol, the Individual refrained from consuming with the support of the family. Id. at 57–58.
5 PEth tests “can provide evidence of high alcohol consumption over approximately the three, possibly four, preceding
weeks, depending on the individual.” Ex. 8 at 6.
5
The Individual’s friend of decades testified that there were times when he felt that the Individual’s
alcohol consumption was “getting a little bit out of hand[.]” Id. at 28–29. The Individual told him
that his arrest “was actually very good for him[,]” and the Individual has proceeded to “change
everything about his life.” Id. at 29–31. The Individual’s friend believes that the Individual will
not drink again, and he feels that the Individual exhibits good judgment and that he is reliable and
trustworthy. Id. at 32–33.
The Individual’s AA sponsor indicated that the Individual asked for his sponsorship months ago,
and that he meets with his group of three sponsees every Saturday to discuss the AA “Big Book”
and their current problems. Id. at 39–41. He also has one-on-one meetings with the Individual with
varying frequency. Id. at 93–94. He speaks to his sponsees daily and stated that the Individual is
on step four of the Twelve Steps. Id. at 41–42. He was happy with the Individual’s participation
in working the Twelve Steps, and stated that he “make[s his] sponsees journal” every day. Id. at
43. He is able to read through their journals to monitor any potential problems or issues. Id. He
testified that although the Individual was initially shy about participating at AA chapter meetings,
he “speaks freely now” and has even chaired some meetings. Id. at 43–44, 47.
The Individual’s therapist,6 who also conducts portions of the IOP and the weekly aftercare
meetings, testified that the Individual has been an active participant in treatment. Id. at 96–98. He
indicated that during the IOP exit interview, the Individual was able to demonstrate a good
understanding of the education he received in the program, and that the Individual seems to be
able to apply those lessons in his life. Id. at 100. He testified that he believes that the Individual
“knows that if he returns to alcohol[,] then some very consistent patterns will probably reappear.”
Id. at 103. When asked about a prognosis, the therapist testified that the Individual has “exceeded
expectations[,]” and that his prognosis is favorable. Id. at 106–07.
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual has proven “faithful to all of the
[recommendations,]” and that the Individual “progressed quickly in terms of [] reformation.” Id.
He indicated that the Individual’s “cooperation was high” and that “[h]is commitment was visible.”
Id. at 112–13. The DOE Psychologist confirmed that the Individual has shown adequate evidence
of rehabilitation and reformation and concluded his testimony by indicating that the Individual’s
AUD is now in full remission. Id. at 114–15, 119.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G 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;
6 The therapist testified that he examined the DOE Psychologist’s Report and agreed with his conclusions and
recommendations. Tr. at 108–09.
6
(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 recognized the fact that his alcohol consumption was maladaptive following the
April 2023 DWI, prompting him to immediately abstain from alcohol and engage an IOP. The
record indicates that the Individual successfully completed the IOP prior to his evaluation with the
DOE Psychologist, and that he began attending AA meetings and engaged an AA sponsor in
December 2023. His ongoing abstinence is corroborated by ten months of negative PEth tests, and
the Individual has remained active in aftercare since completing the IOP in August 2023. He is
working through the Twelve Steps and regularly attends one-on-one therapy. The Individual also
enjoys steadfast support from his family and fellow AA members. Importantly, the Individual’s
therapist indicated that his prognosis is good, and the DOE Psychologist testified that he has shown
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation and is now in full remission. The Individual’s
swift and thorough action to overcome his maladaptive alcohol consumption has provided me with
enough confidence to conclude that he has successfully demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. I conclude that he has
mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I find that he has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the concerns
set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that granting his security
clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent
with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access authorization should be
granted. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals