PSH-24-0067

*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: February 23, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0067
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 9, 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 not be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor 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 2019. Exhibit (Ex.) 4. When asked
whether he had ever been hospitalized for a mental health condition, the Individual indicated that
he had sought treatment for Bipolar Disorder and Anxiety in July 2014. Ex. 4 at 41–42. He also
disclosed that from February 2013 through November 2013, he was consuming alcohol “to [self-
medicate] for undiagnosed mental illness[.]” Id. at 45. Accordingly, when asked whether his
alcohol consumption “negative[ly] impact[ed]” his “work performance, [his] professional or
personal relationships, [his] finances, or resulted in intervention by law enforcement/public safety
personnel[,]” the Individual stated that around May 2013 he left school, received counseling and
treatment, and suffered damage to his personal relationships. Id. The Individual disclosed that he
attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings from July 2013 through July 2017. Id. at 46.
In November 2022, the Individual voluntarily entered inpatient treatment at a hospital for his
mental health. Ex. 7 at 1. He provided information pertaining to his hospitalization to “superiors
within [his] chain of command at the time of hospitalization, so they could manage his absence
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
accordingly.” Ex. C at 4. The Individual did not report the hospitalization to the Personnel Security
Office.
The Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI),
which the Individual completed and submitted in January 2023. Ex. 5 at 1. In this LOI, the
Individual revealed that he “struggled with [his] mental health” after taking on debt and “[self-
identified] that [his] mental health was a key factor in the inability to manage [his] financial
obligations.” Id. His responses prompted the LSO to seek further information regarding his mental
health. Accordingly, the LSO requested that the Individual complete two more LOIs, which the
Individual signed and submitted in March 2023 and April 2023. Ex. 6; Ex. 7; Ex. 8; Ex. 10.
Following the submission of the LOIs, the LSO requested that the Individual undergo a
psychological evaluation with a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 11. The
Individual underwent said evaluation in August 2023, and the DOE Psychologist compiled a report
(the Report) of his findings the same month. Id. In the Report, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed
the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe; Bipolar II Disorder; Adjustment
Disorder with Anxiety; Attention Deficit Disorder (ADHD) Combine Presentation; Histrionic
Personality Disorder with Dependent Personality Type; and Unspecified Personality Disorder with
Masochistic Personality Type and Melancholic Personality Type. Id. at 7–8.
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
a substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), I (Psychological
Conditions), and E (Personal Conduct) 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 his spouse. See Transcript of Hearing,
Case No. PSH-24-0067 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted seven exhibits,
marked Exhibits A through G. The DOE Counsel submitted twelve exhibits marked as Exhibits 1
through 12 and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
A. Guideline E
3
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.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying concern is “[d]eliberately . . . concealing or omitting information, concerning
relevant facts to an employer . . . security official . . , or other official government representative.”
Id. at ¶ 16(b). Under Guideline E, the LSO alleged that in his March 2023 LOI, the Individual
revealed that “he voluntarily sought inpatient treatment in November 2022 for his mental health
conditions” but failed to appropriately report his inpatient treatment to the Personnel Security
Office at the time he was hospitalized. Ex. 2 at 5. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline E is justified.
B. 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 “[h]abitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder[,]” “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health
professional . . . of alcohol use disorder[,]” and “[t]he failure to follow treatment advice once
diagnosed[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(c), (d), (e). Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that:
a. The DOE Psychologist concluded in the August 2023 Report that the Individual suffers
from AUD, Severe, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and he
provided treatment recommendations. Ex. 2 at 1.
b. Based on the Ethyl Glucoronide (EtG) and Phosphatidylethano (PEth) test results, which
registered at 11,516 ng/mL and 239 ng/mL, respectively, the DOE Psychologist concluded
in the Report that the Individual “is consuming alcohol heavily and frequently.” Ex. 2 at
1–2.
c. The DOE Psychologist’s Report notes that the Individual has a history of binge
consumption of alcohol interspersed with periods of abstinence.
d. The DOE Psychologist opined in the Report that the Individual “experienced repeated
periods of alcohol abuse for which he expresses contrition and shame, and despite his
efforts to change, his alcohol disorder persists.” Id.
e. The Individual stated in the April 2023 LOI that he had “report[ed] to work with
hangovers” and recounted one occasion where he drove home in an intoxicated state. Id.
f. The Individual admitted in the April 2023 LOI that he has been dishonest with his spouse
about his alcohol consumption, causing conflict. Id. His spouse recommended that he seek
treatment for his consumption. Id.
4
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
C. Guideline I
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. “A formal diagnosis of
a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.” Id. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[,]” “[v]oluntary or involuntary hospitalization[,]” and “[f]ailure to
follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a diagnosed psychological/psychiatric condition that
may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b), (c), and (d). Under
Guideline I, the LSO alleged that:
a. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Bipolar II Disorder, Adjustment
Disorder with Anxiety, Histrionic Personality Disorder with Dependent Personality Type,
and Unspecific Personality Disorder with a Masochistic Type and a Melancholic Style. Id.
at 3.
b. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual “continue his psychiatric and
psychotherapeutic treatment as recommended by his mental health providers, comply with
all recommendations regarding prescribed medications and psychotherapeutic treatment,
[and] not use any recreational drugs or alcohol[.]” Id. at 3–4. The DOE Psychologist also
indicated that the Individual should “not be hospitalized for any mental health issues for
the next [twelve] months.” Id. at 4.
c. The Individual stated in his April 2023 LOI, that he had been diagnosed with Bipolar
Disorder, ADHD, and Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and that in November
2022, he availed himself of voluntary inpatient treatment after suffering acute symptoms,
including suicidal thoughts. Id. He also stated that he is in one-on-one therapy and “is
prescribed medication.” Id.
d. The Individual indicated in the QNSP that he received inpatient treatment in 2014 after
“self-medicat[ing] his undiagnosed mental illness and attempting suicide.” Id. The
Individual was diagnosed with Bipolar Mood Disorder. Id.
e. The Individual acknowledged to the DOE Psychologist “that he does not always follow
through with the recommended treatment.” Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
5
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).
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.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
The Individual indicated that he would consume alcohol as a teenager, but that following a head
injury in 2012, “[h]e began having more serious mental health issues and started drinking alcohol
heavily[.]” Ex. 5 at 2–3. He also suffered through depression while in college and attempted to
take his own life, which resulted in a seven-to-ten-day hospitalization. Ex. 11 at 3; Ex. E at 4.
Following his 2014 graduation, the Individual began attending AA and was abstinent from alcohol
for approximately two years. Ex. 11 at 3; Tr. at 132–35; Ex. C at 11. He stopped attending AA
meetings in either 2016 or 2017 and began consuming alcohol three to four times per week,
consuming about two to three beers, but “never drank to excess.” Ex. 11 at 3; Ex. E at 4; Tr. at
135. His alcohol consumption increased in 2022 following the stressors of a divorce, enduring a
pandemic, and losing a loved one, and he began drinking to intoxication once per month, “but
admitted that he drank to the point of being mildly impaired [three to four] times per week.”2 Ex.
11 at 3.
The Individual’s mental health declined in 2022 to the point that his “symptoms had become
unmanageable and that [he] was beginning to have feelings of suicidal ideation[.]” Ex. C at 2–3;
Tr. at 64, 103–04, 107; Ex. 11 at 4; Ex. 7 at 1; Ex. E at 3. He sought inpatient hospitalization for
his symptoms in November 2022. Ex. C at 3; Ex. 11 at 4. He was diagnosed with Bipolar II
Disorder, as well as Anxiety, all “resulting from the PTSD diagnosis.” Ex. 7 at 1, 5; Tr. at 113; Ex.
11 at 4. He also received an ADHD diagnosis. Ex. 7 at 1, 5. His medication was adjusted after his
November 2022 inpatient hospitalization for “acute symptoms.” Ex. 7 at 1, 5; Tr. at 113. From the
time of his 2022 hospitalization, he saw a psychiatric provider “between every [two] weeks and
2 Provider treatment notes from July 2022 through December 2022 indicate that the Individual was “self-medicating”
with alcohol, and consuming “[two to three] drinks most days.” Ex. 9 at 1, 3; Ex. C at 5. The provider recommended
that the Individual “avoid” alcohol and “encourage[d] sobriety.” Id. at 6, 8, 11, 13. In his personal statement, the
Individual admitted that his “medication provider recommended alcohol treatment in 2022 prior” to the creation of “a
specific plan for modified alcohol consumption and treatment goals[]” with his current therapist. Ex. C at 5–6.
6
[one] month to discuss the efficacy of [his] medications” and beginning in late November 2022,
he started seeing a new therapist on a weekly or biweekly basis.3 Ex. 11 at 4; Ex. 7 at 1–3; Tr. at
49–50, 100–11, 113, 156–57. He indicated that he is compliant with his treatment
recommendations.4 Ex. 7 at 1; Ex. C at 4; Tr. at 113–14.
The Individual indicated in his April 2023 LOI that since his hospitalization, he primarily
consumes “alcohol at home[,]” and that he usually drinks “a glass of wine” with dinner. Ex. 10 at
4; Tr. at 63, 65, 67–68. He also consumes beer or whiskey “[o]n weekends or in social settings
about one to two times per month.” Ex. 10 at 1–2. The Individual stated that in the year prior to
the completion of the April 2023 LOI, “there were periods when [he] would drink [one to two
twelve ounce] beers in the evening” before going to bed. Ex. 10 at 1–2; Tr. at 65, 67–68. He stated
in the April 2023 LOI that he was last intoxicated in December 2022, and estimated that he “had
been intoxicated [three to four] times in the past year.” Ex. 10 at 2. Later in the LOI, the Individual
stated that he consumes alcohol to the point of intoxication approximately one to two times per
month. Id. at 5. The Individual admitted to one instance of driving while intoxicated in late 2022,
reporting to work with a hangover, the fact that his spouse urged him to seek treatment for his
mental health and alcohol consumption, and the fact that he sought couples therapy after his spouse
learned that he was being dishonest about his alcohol consumption. Id. at 5–6.
The DOE Psychologist noted in his Report that the Individual stated that he “presently drinks
socially with friends . . , drinks at home, and drinks when [he] is out socially.” Ex. 11 at 3. He
estimated that he consumes “one or two drinks [five to six] times per week.” Id. at 4. The DOE
Psychologist also learned that the Individual’s past financial struggles were not the result of
alcohol consumption, but rather, he would fail to “adequately manage his finances when he was
drinking[.]” Id. The DOE Psychologist’s Report notes that the Individual’s underwent PEth and
EtG tests in conjunction with the evaluation, the results of which registered a positive result of 239
ng/mL and 11,516 ng/mL, respectively.5 Id. at 4.
3 A written statement by the therapist dated February 2023 indicates that she has been regularly seeing the Individual,
for a total of forty-three sessions “to date.” Ex. D at 16–17. The therapy the Individual receives primarily focuses on
helping the Individual manage stress and anxiety, “as related to financial challenges, strengthening of relationships,
and daily life stressors.” Ex. 5 at 4. Her notes indicate that the Individual should “[r]educe use of alcohol as a coping
technique[.]” Ex. 7 at 5. The therapist also stated that the Individual understands the issues caused by alcohol
consumption, and he has worked to reduce his consumption, which included “accountability with his spouse,
recognition of triggers for alcohol use, and identification of healthy coping skills . . . which was successful.” Ex. D at
17; Tr. at 44, 71, 78–79, 109–12. The Individual’s triggers include “unmanaged anxiety.” Tr. at 84. Regarding his
mental health, she indicated that the Individual is stable “through medication and therapeutic compliance.” Ex. D at
17–18.
4 In a February 2023 letter, a psychiatric nurse practitioner who also sees the Individual for medication management
and has been doing so since July 2022, stated that since his discharge from the hospital in November 2022, “he has
been stable and continued to be compliant with treatment.” Ex. 7 at 4.
5 The DOE Psychologist concluded that the PEth results indicate that the Individual has been consuming “on average
more than [five] drinks of alcohol per day over the prior three weeks.” Ex. 11 at 5. Further, he opined that the EtG
results indicated that the Individual “had consumed a significant amount of alcohol within the [ninety-six] hours prior
to his lab test.” Id. There is no indication in the Report that the DOE Psychologist had the PEth and EtG test results
interpreted by a medical doctor or some other qualified professional. The DOE Psychologist’s curriculum vitae also
does not indicate that he is a medical doctor or otherwise specially qualified to interpret PEth or EtG test results. Ex.
12. While I accept that these results indicate that the Individual consumed alcohol, I will give the DOE Psychologist’s
7
The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual “has experienced repeated periods of alcohol
abuse for which he expresses contrition and shame, and despite his efforts to change, his alcohol
disorder persists.” Id. at 7. He opined that the Individual suffers from AUD, Severe, and that he
has not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 8. The DOE Psychologist
recommended twelve months of abstinence, that he submit to EtG and PEth tests every two
months, that he “attend [and complete] an alcohol rehabilitation program[,]” and “comply with all
post-discharge recommendations.” Id. at 8–9. The DOE Psychologist specifically recommended
that the Individual attend an inpatient program, “if possible,” and one that “specializes in dual-
diagnosis patients[.]” Id. at 9. In the alternative, he recommended, the Individual could attend AA
or a similar program, three times a week for twelve months, and engage a sponsor. Id. The DOE
Psychologist also diagnosed the Individual with Bipolar II Disorder, Adjustment Disorder with
Anxiety, ADHD, Histrionic Personality Disorder with Dependent Personality Type, and
Unspecified Personality Disorder with Masochistic Type and Melancholic Style. Id. at 7, 9. The
DOE Psychologist stated that in order for him to “gain confidence that [the Individual’s] mental
health conditions are not of a nature that would impair his judgment, stability reliability, or
trustworthiness, the Individual should “continue his psychiatric and psychotherapeutic treatment
as recommended[,]” that he “comply with all recommendations regarding prescribed medications
and psychotherapeutic treatment,” that he refrain from using any “recreational drugs or alcohol,”
and that he not undergo any hospitalization “for any mental health issues including suicidality.”
Id. at 9. The DOE Psychologist noted that before the Individual resumes work, he should receive
another evaluation by a “DOE approved provider[.]” Id. The DOE Psychologist noted in the Report
that the Individual “does seem to be willing to continue with treatment, although he
acknowledge[d] that he does not always follow” directions given to him by providers. Id. at 7.
The Individual voluntarily submitted to a second psychological evaluation with a provider of his
own choosing in March 2024.6 Ex. E. The provider produced a report of his observations and
findings in April 2024. Id. at 1. The Individual gave this provider the same history he gave to the
DOE Psychologist regarding his alcohol consumption and mental health issues. Id. at 2–5. He also
told the provider that he was diagnosed with AUD when he was first hospitalized as a college
student. Id. at 4. The provider specifically noted that the Individual engaged in moderate alcohol
consumption from 2019 through 2020, and after his divorce in 2020, he began consuming alcohol
in a manner consistent with severe AUD. Ex. E at 4; Tr. at 64, 107, 136–37. The provider stated
that the Individual tried to be compliant with his medication at the time, but he may have “been
unintentionally variable with his medication compliance due, in part, to his drinking behavior.”7
interpretations of the level of consumption testimony less than expert weight since he was not qualified to interpret
the PEth or EtG test results. The Individual stated that these test results were taken out of context, as he had hosted a
series of parties with his spouse prior to submitting to the tests, and accordingly, he was consuming more alcohol than
usual. Ex. C at 6; Tr. at 45, 105–06. On the night of the last event in August 2023, the Individual consumed five to
seven alcoholic drinks “over the course of a day and night.” Tr. at 106.
6 The provider’s report and curriculum vitae indicate that the provider is a Licensed Psychologist. Ex. E at 17; Ex. F.
The provider did not testify at the hearing and was not made available for questioning.
7 The Individual testified that there must have been some miscommunication because he was compliant with his
medication, and that he was “noncompliant” because he continued consuming alcohol against medical advice. Tr. at
127–32. The Individual noted in his testimony that he was hospitalized in 2022, in part, due to the fact that his
“medication was becoming ineffective” as it was interacting with the alcohol. Tr. at 130, 147–48, 150, 157–58.
8
Ex. E at 4. The Individual explained that his Bipolar II Disorder and ADHD symptoms are well
managed with medication but admitted that “his excessive drinking behavior has intermittently
impaired his functioning in a variety of life areas.” Id. at 5, 13.
The March 2024 provider consulted with the Individual’s psychiatric provider, who indicated that
the Individual is on four different daily medications to treat his ADHD and Bipolar II Disorder.
Id. at 11. The Individual has also been prescribed one drug to use “as needed.” Id. The Individual’s
psychiatric provider indicated that the Individual “is compliant with all medication and treatment
recommendations,” and he “confidently stated that he does not have any risk-related concerns
regarding the [Individual].” Id. The Individual’s therapist was also consulted, and she indicated
that she has been seeing the Individual for fifteen months, and that she intends to “monitor and
therapeutically address [the Individual’s alcohol consumption] moving forward.” Id. “She noted
that she [does not have any] risk-related concerns regarding” the Individual. Id.
The March 2024 provider diagnosed the Individual with ADHD Combined Type, Bipolar II
Disorder, and AUD, Severe, in partial remission,8 and recommended continued weekly individual
therapy, which will allow for continued symptom monitoring.9 Id. at 14–15. The provider also
suggested that the Individual would benefit from ongoing medication management, and that he
may want to consider coaching to assist him with ADHD symptoms. Id. at 15–16. He indicated
that if the Individual’s “symptoms of [AUD] reemerge,” the Individual should participate in a
treatment program. Id. at 16.
The Individual began abstaining from alcohol in November 2023 and he has no intention of
returning to alcohol consumption. Ex. C at 5–6; Tr. at 44, 104–05, 160–62. He began attending
AA meetings in early February 2024, and had attended twenty-two meetings by the end of March
2024. Ex. E at 18; Tr. at 56, 78, 111, 137–40. The Individual has not engaged a sponsor and is not
working his way through the twelve steps. Tr. at 140–41. He also voluntarily submitted to two
PEth tests, the first in February 2024 and the second in March 2024. Ex. E at 19–22. Both tests
were negative. Id.
The Individual’s spouse acknowledged that the Individual had experienced “feelings of isolation”
at the start of the pandemic, but that he usually does not report feeling stressed. Tr. at 19–23, 58.
She described the combination of the COVID-19 pandemic and the death of the Individual’s loved
one as “a once in a lifetime occurrence.” Tr. at 23, 47, 56, 108; Ex. C at 3. The Individual’s spouse
knew about his previous hospitalization, alcohol consumption, and treatment as her husband has
been “honest about his . . . mental health[.]” Tr. at 58–60. She stated that since attending therapy,
the Individual has exhibited behaviors that evidence “healthy coping skills” like deep breathing,
going on walks, and drawing. Tr. at 23–24, 48, 56, 113, 117; Ex. C at 3. She confirmed that the
Individual stopped drinking in November 2023, and that she has seen her husband make
appropriate non-alcoholic drink choices. Tr. at 24–25. She described a strong support system, and
the Individual’s determination to remain sober. Tr. at 26–27, 108, 116; Ex. C at 3. The couple has
8 The provider noted that if the Individual “does not exhibit clinically significant symptoms of [AUD] for a full
[twelve] months, his diagnosis should be amended to ‘in full remission.’” Ex. E at 13.
9 The provider suggested a diagnostic reevaluation if the Individual’s “behavior escalates,” and noted that he did not
find enough evidence to diagnose the Individual with Histrionic Personality Disorder. Ex. E at 16.
9
cleared their home of alcohol. Tr. at 82. The Individual’s spouse testified that the amount the
Individual was consuming prior to his November 2022 hospitalization was not a concern, but
rather, the fact that he was using alcohol to “unwind.” Id. at 48. She testified that the Individual
has “achieve[d] the best mental wellness [she has] ever seen from him[,]” that the Individual’s
medications are “well-managed,” and that he is in compliance with his medication. Id. at 50, 52.
Regarding his failure to report his 2022 hospitalization, the Individual indicated that he was not
attempting to deceive anyone, as he believed that reporting the matter to his second-line supervisor
was sufficient and that he was compliant with reporting requirements. Ex. C at 4; Tr. at 35, 153.
He admitted that he also called his second-line supervisor because he needed to ask for sick leave,
which resulted in a detailed conversation regarding his hospitalization. Tr. at 120–22. The
Individual testified that he “fully disclosed the hospitalization” in the LOI and he was “candid”
while answering subsequent questions. Id. at 97–98, 101. His spouse testified that prior to his
hospitalization, the Individual approached her regarding inpatient care, and she said that they “both
knew [that] his job would have to be notified.” Id. at 35. She described the fact that the Individual
failed to report the situation to the LSO as “a misfortunate misunderstanding[,]” as the Individual
is eager to take any recommended corrective actions and is “honest to a fault.” Id. at 36–39, 41.
She also indicated that patients relinquish possession of their personal phones upon entering
inpatient hospitalization but confirmed that the admission had been planned. Id. at 85–87.
Although the Individual called his supervisor from a centrally located phone at the hospital, he
was primarily focused on getting help. Id. at 120–22, 153–54.
In his testimony, the DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual endured a relapse following a
period of sobriety, and that the relapse was the result of “major changes . . . and traumatic events
that occurred[.]” Tr. at 177. As these may be triggers for the Individual’s alcohol consumption, the
DOE Psychologist was primarily concerned with relapse prevention. Id. at 177–78. Additionally,
because alcohol abuse can be a comorbidity to various mental health diagnoses, including Bipolar
II Disorder, the DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual may be at a “little higher risk for
relapse.” Id. at 178–79. As a result, continuing with therapy, medication management, and treating
his AUD is “very important.” Id. at 179. Although the “harm reduction model,”10 which entails
reduced and controlled alcohol consumption to treat AUD “is entirely appropriate[]” for “many
people,” the efficacy of this model is reduced when considering other risk factors associated with
the alcohol consumption. Id. at 180–81. Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist noted that considering
alcohol consumption is “a big risk . . . at this point in [the Individual’s] recovery.” Id. at 181. At
the time of the hearing, as the Individual had not fully complied with the DOE Psychologist’s
recommendations insofar as they concern the AUD diagnosis, the DOE Psychologist could not
conclude that the Individual had demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation
from his AUD. Id. at 186. When asked whether the Individual’s Bipolar II Disorder and ADHD
were being controlled with treatment, the DOE Psychologist said, “yes” and that the Individual’s
current treatment “seems to be very effective for him.” Id. at 183–84. He did note that the
Individual’s ADHD has not been “a real problem for him in the past.” Id. at 179. He further
testified that the “medications that are being used are entirely reasonable” and the DOE
Psychologist testified that a treatment program is “good” only if the Individual “continues his
active involvement with AA.” Id. at 183–84.
10 The “harm reduction model” is the term the DOE Psychologist used interchangeably with “controlled” or
“modified” alcohol consumption.
10
V. Analysis
A. Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
The Individual was under a direct duty to disclose the hospitalization no later than three working
days after its occurrence. See DOE O 472.2A, Attachment 5. While the Individual was honest
about his mental health hospitalization after being asked about his mental health in general, I
cannot conclude that he mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a), as the LSO
first learned of matters pertaining to his mental health in the context of an LOI issued to him
months after his hospitalization. I do not have any information before me indicating that the
11
Individual came forward and reported this information to the LSO prior to completing any LOI or
being approached by the LSO regarding his mental health.
I also cannot conclude that the Individual mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating
factor (c). Because all individuals with access authorization are under an ongoing obligation to
report hospitalizations for mental health reasons to their Local Security Office, I cannot conclude
that the Individual’s failure to report took place under unique circumstances. I also cannot conclude
that enough time has passed, as the most recent failure to report took place in late 2022. Further,
as the Individual had a continuing obligation to report, I cannot conclude that the failure to report
was minor. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns
pursuant to mitigating factor (c).
Although the Individual is receiving therapy, there is no indication in the record that the Individual
is receiving therapy for behavior specifically related to the allegation that he failed to report his
2022 hospitalization. Additionally, there is nothing in the record to indicate that the Individual
failed to report due to advice from counsel or a person with professional responsibilities for
advising or instructing the individual specifically concerning security processes. Therefore, the
mitigating factors at (d) and (b) are not applicable. The LSO did not allege any association with
persons involved in criminal activity or any vulnerability due to the failure to report, and
accordingly, the mitigating factors at (e) and (g) are not applicable. Further, as the Individual never
alleged that the information regarding the failure to report was unsubstantiated or came from a
questionable source, mitigating factor (f) is also not applicable.
B. Guideline G
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;
(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.
12
The record before me indicates that the Individual was diagnosed with AUD following his first
inpatient hospitalization, and although he successfully remained abstinent for two years, he
thereafter resumed alcohol consumption, which was inconsistent with medical advice that he
received in 2022. Although the Individual has recognized his pattern of maladaptive alcohol
consumption, it is clear from the record that his consumption increased prior to both periods of
hospitalization. Despite being diagnosed with AUD after both hospitalizations, it concerns me that
the individual still refuses to seek treatment that specifically targets AUD, like an outpatient
treatment program. Even though the provider that the Individual saw in March 2024 determined
that the Individual’s AUD was in partial remission because he had experienced some months of
abstinence at the time of the evaluation, the Individual has not enjoyed a period of abstinence long
enough to merit a diagnosis of “full remission,” and therefore, his efforts have not provided me
with enough assurance that he has mitigated the stated Guideline G concerns.
As the Individual has only been abstinent for approximately four months following years of
maladaptive alcohol consumption, a previous diagnosis of AUD, and a relapse, I cannot conclude
that enough time has passed or that the maladaptive alcohol consumption was infrequent. I also
cannot conclude that the consumption took place under unusual circumstances, as it spanned years
and took place under various life circumstances, like a pandemic, a divorce, and a subsequent
marriage. The Individual has not mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
While the Individual has recognized his prior maladaptive alcohol use and engaged in modified
consumption prior to abstaining from alcohol in 2023, I cannot conclude that the Individual has
mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b). First, the Individual acknowledged
that before he devised a plan to reduce his consumption with the assistance of his therapist, his
medical provider recommended that he abstain from alcohol, which he failed to do. Importantly,
while the DOE Psychologist acknowledged that modified consumption could work for some
people, the chances that modified consumption would be successful for this Individual is reduced
by various risk factors. Additionally, the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation was for abstinence
for a period of twelve months, and as of the hearing, the Individual had only completed
approximately four months. Although the Individual recently reengaged with AA, he has not done
so for twelve months and has not engaged a sponsor. When considering his history with AUD and
the years of problematic alcohol consumption, his recent positive actions to address the matter
have fallen short of demonstrating a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations.
Although the Individual is receiving ongoing therapy, he is not participating in targeted alcohol
abuse treatment, and accordingly, mitigating factor (d) is not applicable. In addition, as the
Individual also has a history of treatment and relapse, mitigating factor (c) is not applicable.
C. Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I include:
13
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amendable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
While there is evidence in the record indicating that the Individual is compliant with his medication
and that he has been regularly seeing his therapist and psychiatric provider, the Individual has
failed to mitigate the stated Guideline I concerns. As the record indicates, the Individual’s AUD is
a comorbidity of the Bipolar II Disorder, and the Individual has suffered more acute symptoms
when his alcohol consumption has increased, necessitating inpatient hospitalization. Further, the
DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual also abstain from alcohol to avoid such acute
symptoms that would throw his good judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability into doubt.
Although the Individual has been abstinent from alcohol for several months, he is not in full
remission, which requires abstinence for twelve consecutive months, and he has not demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Accordingly, I am not persuaded that the likelihood of relapse is low, and as such, I am unable to
conclude that the recurrence of acute symptoms requiring medical attention is unlikely. As the
Individual has not been abstinent from alcohol for twelve months, thus reducing the chances of
relapse and an increase in acute symptoms, I cannot conclude that he has mitigated the stated
concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
Although I have evidence before me that the Individual is amenable to treatment and is receiving
treatment, I do not have information regarding his prognosis. Mitigating factor (b) is not
applicable. As I do not have a medical opinion in the record to suggest that the condition is in
remission with a low probability of recurrence or exacerbation, mitigating factor (c) is also not
applicable. As there is a current problem and no indication that the condition was temporary,
mitigating factors (d) and (e) are not applicable.
VI. Conclusion
14
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G, E, and I
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 the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not
demonstrated that restoring 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 not be restored. 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