PSH-24-0076

*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: February 29, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0076
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 26, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, 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 restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. In August 1999, the Individual was arrested and charged with Minor in Consumption
of Alcohol. Exhibit (Ex.) 10 at 59.2 On August 23, 2023, the Individual was given a random Breath
Alcohol Test (BAT) at work and tested positive at .039 g/210L and .033 g/210L. Ex. 9 at 45. Later
that day he submitted a written statement, in which he admitted to consuming eight beers the
evening prior to coming to work. Ex. 8 at 38. He claimed this behavior was “out of character” for
him and blamed it on marital difficulties he was experiencing. Id.
On September 27, 2023, the Individual responded to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) from the Local
Security Office (LSO). Ex. 10. Therein, he again explained the circumstances of his positive BAT.
Id. at 58. He further stated that from about April 2022 through August 2023, his pattern of alcohol
consumption increased to approximately six-to-eight beers on weekends. Id. at 59. The last time
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 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.
- 2 -
he was intoxicated, he claimed, was on August 5, 2023, when he drank 12 beers in four hours. Id.
at 60. The last time he consumed any alcohol, he stated, was on September 9, 2023. Id. at 59. On
September 11, 2023, the Individual entered an intensive outpatient program (IOP) to address his
problematic alcohol consumption. Id. at 58; Ex. A (certificate of IOP completion dated November
2, 2023).
The Individual was referred for a psychological evaluation with a DOE-contracted psychologist
(Psychologist), who conducted a 1.25-hour clinical interview of the Individual on November 13,
2023, and prepared a Psychological Assessment (Report) documenting his findings and
conclusions.3 Ex. 11. As an initial matter, the Psychologist opined that based on the Individual’s
BAT level recorded on August 23, 2023, he most likely underreported the amount of alcohol he
consumed the night before, or else consumed the eight beers closer in time to the BAT than
reported. Id. at 67. According to the Report, the Individual told the Psychologist his alcohol
consumption increased in April 2022 in response to his brother’s death, but his use of alcohol was
almost always limited to weekends. Id. at 67–68. He acknowledged that he would sometimes
consume up to twelve beers across the weekend, but still viewed himself as a “normal drinker.”
Id. at 68. The Individual further claimed that his last use of alcohol occurred somewhere in the
first nine days of September, when he consumed six beers in three-and-a-half hours. Id. The
Individual spoke positively to the Psychologist about his experience in the IOP, and when asked
about his plans regarding future alcohol consumption, he responded without hesitation, “I’m
done.” Id. at 69–70.
As part of his evaluation, the Psychologist consulted with the Individual’s counselor (Counselor),
who oversaw the Individual’s participation in the IOP. Id. at 72. The Counselor reported that at
the conclusion of his initial assessment with Individual, the Individual decided the IOP was
something he needed to do and signed up that very day. Id. The Counselor described the Individual
as being “shy” and “isolated” in the IOP group at first, but over time becoming a leader. Id. After
completion of the IOP, the Counselor reported, the Individual began attending aftercare sessions.
Id.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual had an alcohol use disorder (AUD) of moderate
severity, not yet in early remission, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. Id. at 73. Nonetheless, he opined, the Individual had
already demonstrated reformation “at a very high level” by quickly pursuing the IOP, completing
it successfully, and continuing in the aftercare program. Id. The Individual had not yet
demonstrated rehabilitation, the Psychologist opined, as this would require an additional period of
sustained abstinence. Id. To show reformation and rehabilitation, the Psychologist recommended
that the Individual continue in aftercare for at least six months, demonstrate six months of
3 In addition to the information obtained from the clinical interview, the Psychologist based his Report on his 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. 11 at 66. Immediately following the interview, the Psychologist had the Individual undergo a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which “can provide evidence of high alcohol consumption over approximately the
three, possibly four preceding weeks, depending on the likes of the individual’s ability to metabolize alcohol.” Id. at
72. The Individual’s PEth result was negative, which indicated “either very low or minimal alcohol consumption in
the recent weeks leading up to the date of this evaluation.” Id.
- 3 -
abstinence through a series of negative PEth tests, pursue one-on-one counseling, and if the
aftercare meetings were only once per week, attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings on a
weekly basis. Id. at 73–74.
On January 30, 2024, 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 at 6. 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. Id. at 5.
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 14 exhibits (Ex. 1–14). The Individual submitted eight exhibits (Ex.
A–H). At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of his
girlfriend (Girlfriend) and his Counselor. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0076 (Tr.)
at 10–80. The LSO offered the testimony of the Psychologist. Id. at 80–90.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G as the basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible for
access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6. “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 the Individual’s diagnosis with
AUD, not yet in early remission and without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation;
the Individual’s positive BAT on August 23, 2023, and admission that he had consumed eight
beers the night before; and the Individual’s 1999 arrest and charge with Minor in Consumption of
Alcohol. Ex. 1 at 5. These allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. See
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a)–(b), (d).
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
- 4 -
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. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual’s Girlfriend testified that she first met the Individual in January 2024 and began
her relationship with him at that time. Tr. at 10–11. She stated that she often sees him two-to-three
times during the work week and significantly on the weekends. Id. at 11, 15. Within their first week
of dating, she testified, the Individual told her that drinking “wasn’t something that he does or
wanted to do.” Id. at 13. The Girlfriend stated that the Individual told her that he last consumed
alcohol in “July or August of last year.” Id. at 21. During the time when he was consuming alcohol,
she testified, his consumption was triggered by the death of his brother and “life” in general. Id.
She indicated that she believes the Individual “knows that he had [an alcohol problem] in the past,”
but since she has known him, he has “done everything . . . [to] change that.” Id. at 22.
The Girlfriend further testified that, after the Individual’s aftercare meetings on Mondays and
Wendesdays, he will often call her to share his thoughts on each meeting. Id. at 12. She described
him as “very upbeat . . . and retrospective on what he learned” after each meeting. Id. at 13. She
testified that she does not consume alcohol, she has not seen him consume alcohol, and neither
herself nor the Individual keep alcohol in their houses. Id. at 15–16. The Girlfriend additionally
stated that she was previously married to an alcoholic, so if the Individual started drinking again,
she would not continue the relationship. Id. at 14, 17.
The Individual testified regarding the circumstances of his positive BAT. He asserted that, on the
night of August 22, 2023, he “d[idn]’t count” how much he had to drink and may have had more
than the six or eight beers he previously reported. Id. at 26. In addition to the loss of his brother
two years ago, the Individual also indicated that his excessive drinking was influenced by his
divorce, which was finalized in early August 2023. Id. at 28–29. He indicated that he did not
dispute the Psychologist’s opinion that he had an AUD. Id. at 25.
The Individual testified about his experience in the IOP, stating that, although he did not believe
he had an alcohol problem at the time he entered, once he started the program, he “kn[ew] for a
fact” that he had a problem. Id. at 27–28. The Individual indicated that the IOP consisted of four
three-hour classes each week, with a different counselor each night. Id. at 32. He stated that the
classes helped him to cope with the loss of his brother, “where in the past[,] [he] didn’t really know
how to deal with it, so [he] drank.” Id. at 30. He further stated that the classes discussed “not only
[how to] stop drinking, but [also how to] identify relapses.” Id. at 32. The Individual noted that he
developed a friendship with another IOP attendee, who he still considers to be part of his support
network. Id. at 32–33.
The Individual explained that after he completed the IOP on November 2, 2023, he began the
aftercare program immediately. Id. at 34; see also Ex. A (certificate of IOP completion dated
November 2, 2023). The aftercare program, he testified, consists of hour-long sessions each
Monday and Wednesday night. Tr. at 34. The Individual stated that on Mondays, his Counselor
- 5 -
leads the meeting, which is often more “educational” than the Wednesday meetings, which offer
more of an “AA perspective.” Id. at 35. He spoke positively about the Monday meetings, but also
stated that he appreciates the “different perspectives” in both meetings. Id. at 35–36. He further
indicated that he intends to continue with aftercare as long as the Psychologist recommended it.
Id. at 36. The Individual testified that he currently attends individual counseling sessions with his
Counselor approximately once a month. Id. at 30, 52. He feels more “comfortable opening up all
the way” during these sessions, he testified, because of their “one-on-one” nature. Id. at 31. He
indicated that he intends to continue with the individual counseling sessions every three-to-four
weeks. Id.
The Individual asserted that he has not consumed alcohol since September 5, 2023, and no longer
keeps alcohol in his house. Id. at 40. He further confirmed that, in addition to his negative mid-
November 2023 PEth test noted in the Report, he underwent additional PEth tests every month
between December 2023 and April 2024, all of which had negative results.4 Id. at 36–37; see also
Ex. 11 at 72 (negative November 2023 PEth test); Ex. B (negative December 2023 PEth test); Ex.
C (negative January 2024 PEth test); Ex. D (negative February 2024 PEth test); Ex. E (negative
March 2024 PEth test); Ex. F (negative April 2024 PEth test). The Individual testified that has “no
intentions on . . . ever drinking again,” and stated that he realizes his “time is valuable.” Tr. at 40.
He further asserted that the positive BAT was a “blessing in disguise” because he wasn’t aware
that he had a problem with alcohol at that time, but now, the “IOP has most definitely changed
[his] life.” Id. at 41.
On cross-examination, the Individual was asked whether he has ever attempted to stop drinking
alcohol before. Id. The Individual responded that he had “slowed down before,” but never
attempted to stop drinking completely. Id. at 41–42. He indicated that he consumed less alcohol
when his children were younger because he didn’t “have the time for it,” but indicated his alcohol
use picked up when he had “more time on his hands.” Id. at 42. He was also asked how he currently
handles stressful situations and responded that he is now able to “figure out a solution” and “deal
with it with a clear head.” Id. at 44. The Individual expounded further on his decision to begin the
IOP even before meeting with the Psychologist and noted that his employer recommended the
program, and he “realized that . . . [he] definitely needed [the] IOP.” Id. at 46–47. He clarified that,
to the best of his recollection, his first meeting with the Counselor was on September 7, 2023, and
during this meeting, he first realized that he had an alcohol problem. Id. at 54. When he thereafter
stopped consuming alcohol, the Individual testified, he had cravings for alcohol “at first,” but as
of the hearing date he no longer had such cravings. Id. at 54, 56.
When pressed on his ability to remain sober during traumatic life events, the Individual stated that
he has a “great group of people at [his] aftercare.” Id. at 48. For example, he noted that even on
the morning of the hearing, several aftercare members “reached out to let [him] know that they
were thinking about [him].” Id. at 48–49. The Individual further stated that it is his intention to
attend the Counselor’s aftercare program “as long as [the] doors are open,” but he is willing to
attend AA if the Psychologist recommends it. Id. at 49. When asked about his August 1999 charge
of Minor in Consumption of Alcohol, the Individual stated that he had been arrested after drinking
4 The Individual also submitted the results of four random breathalyzer tests he received at work between August 2023
and May 2024, all of which were negative. Ex. G at 22–25.
- 6 -
at a party. Id. at 51. He indicated that the charges were resolved after he completed community
service and paid a fine. Id.
The Counselor testified that he first met the Individual for an initial evaluation on September 7,
2023, and that the Individual first inquired about attending the IOP at that time. Id. at 60–61. After
this initial meeting, the Counselor confirmed, the Individual started the IOP the very next week.
Id. at 62. He stated that the Individual was “restrictive and standoffish” when he first started the
IOP, but “as he progressed[,] . . . he began being not only interactive, but jovial.” Id. at 75. He
indicated that the Individual “started as a wallpaper,” but “ended as . . . an organizer in the group,
[and] an instigator of topics.” Id. at 66.
The Counselor perceived that the Individual “had not processed any of the loss of his brother” at
the time he began the IOP, but stated the Individual “can [now] talk about it and . . . access those
positive memories which were apparently out of reach early on.” Id. at 64–65. The Counselor
noted that the Individual’s mother is currently facing very serious health issues, and although this
is a difficult situation, it has been “very useful to focus on” that type of stress in the counseling
sessions. Id. at 64. He further stated that the Individual has “the early granules of skill set to cope
with” such stressful situations now, and he must “continue working on [these coping skills].” Id.
at 65–66. Regarding the Individual’s participation in the Monday aftercare meetings, the
Counselor testified that “there are days where he’s more interactive than others,” but noted that the
Individual “tends to have some involvement, some vocalization” in every session. Id. at 67–68.
The Counselor stated that his individual sessions with the Individual typically focus on a “mixture
of current events versus new strategies for dealing with [stress],” which can include discussion of
“emotional regulation, responses to stress, [and] self-care.” Id. at 68.
The Counselor further stated that he believes the Individual’s AUD to be in early remission as he
has complied with all treatment recommendations, which included completing six months of
aftercare and undergoing monthly PEth testing during that time. Id. at 70–71. He stated that if the
Individual continues to “connect with what he values from this experience . . . and work on it,” he
believes that the Individual is “going to do well.” Id. at 73. The Counselor stated that he would
continue to recommend regular individual therapy sessions, but noted he would leave the decision
as to whether to attend aftercare up to the Individual “based off of his own needs and his own
instincts.” Id. at 76.
The Psychologist testified that, based on the Individual’s negative PEth test results, he has likely
maintained abstinence for seven months, which he believes is “pretty powerful.” Id. at 84–85.
Although he typically “push[es] for a year of abstinence,” the Psychologist testified, he was
comfortable with recommending six months in his Report because the Individual had already
completed the IOP by the time of the evaluation. Id. at 85. He opined that the Individual has
complied with all of his treatment recommendations and noted that the Individual’s attendance of
two aftercare meetings per week “equals” the group support recommendation in the Report, which
indicated that the Individual could consider attending AA if he only attended one aftercare meeting
per week. Id. at 85, 87–88. In light of the Individual’s satisfaction of the treatment
recommendations, the Psychologist testified that the Individual met the definition of both
rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 89. He further stated that he is “convinced that” the Individual
- 7 -
can continue with his abstinence, but emphasized the need for the Individual to continue with
group support meetings. Id. at 86, 89.
V. ANALYSIS
Conditions that may 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 maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence
of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol 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 demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraphs (b), (c)
and (d). Because I rely upon much of the same evidence in considering each of these mitigating
factors, the following analysis addresses them together. The Individual completed an eight-week
IOP in November 2023, has continued to participate in two aftercare meetings each week since
that time, and has demonstrated his abstinence for at least six months through a series of negative
PEth test results. As the Psychologist confirmed, the Individual has met all treatment
recommendations and meets the definition of both rehabilitation and reformation. In addition, the
Individual currently attends individual therapy sessions with the Counselor approximately once
per month and indicated his intent to continue these sessions, as well as the aftercare, for the
foreseeable future.
Furthermore, it is evident that the Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use, and
I find his testimony to be sincere regarding the realization of his alcohol problem during the IOP.
I also find compelling the Individual’s testimony – corroborated by the Counselor – that he is
better able to cope with stressful situations, and it is clear that he now has a strong support network
in place, which includes his Girlfriend, Counselor, a former IOP attendee, and several other
members of the aftercare program. Additionally, while the Individual indicated that he has
attempted to “slow down” his drinking in the past, there is no evidence that he actually attempted
to stop drinking altogether prior to his current attempt. Therefore, the Individual does not have a
- 8 -
history of treatment and relapse. Accordingly, I conclude that he has mitigated the stated concerns
pursuant to mitigating factors (b), (c), and (d).5
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 G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all 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 Summary of Security Concerns. 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
5 To the extent the Individual’s 1999 Minor in Consumption of Alcohol charge raises a security concern apart from
those raised by his more recent pattern of consumption and diagnosis of AUD, that concern is clearly mitigated by the
passage of 25 years since the behavior occurred. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a).