PSH-24-0081

*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: March 7, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0081
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 5, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Janet R. H. Fishman, 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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 1. In September 2023, the Individual was charged with Battery On A
Household Member after consuming two sixteen-ounce alcoholic beverages. Id. at 5.2 As a result
of the September 2023 criminal charge, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued the Individual a
Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) concerning the incident. Ex. 9. In his response, the Individual
represented that he was “wrongfully accused.” Id. at 58. The Individual responded to a second LOI
in October 2023 and indicated that the September 2023 criminal charge against him was dismissed.
Ex. 8 at 47. He also reported that, although he testified during a prior administrative review hearing
in November 2022 that he had been sober since July 2021 and was dedicated to his sobriety, he
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 LSO’s Exs. 1–13 were combined and submitted in a single, 892-page PDF workbook. References to LSO Exs.
1–13 are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner of each exhibit page. The LSO
submitted Ex. 14 as a separate document. This Decision will cite to Ex. 14 by reference to the exhibit and page number
within the document.
- 2 -
had relapsed and consumed “[two] beers” in July 2023 and two beers in September 2023.3 Id. at
39–40. The Individual further represented that he had been sober since September 2023. Id. at 41.
In December 2023, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE-consultant Psychologist (DOE
Psychologist), which resulted in a finding that the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders -- Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol
Use Disorder (AUD), moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex.
10 at 73–74.
The LSO subsequently issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.
Ex. 1 at 5. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G 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 conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted fourteen exhibits (Exs. 1–14). The Individual submitted seven exhibits (Exs. A–G).4
The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of five additional witnesses.
Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0081 (Tr.) at 11–95. The LSO called the DOE
Psychologist to testify. Id. at 96–109.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline G, under which the LSO raised the security concerns, relates to security risks arising
from excessive alcohol consumption. “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. In citing Guideline
G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s December 2023 diagnosis that the Individual
suffered from AUD, moderate. Ex. 1 at 5. It also cited the Individual’s alcohol consumption prior
to his September 2023 battery charge and his admission that he relapsed in July 2023 despite
previously testifying that he was dedicated to sobriety in November 2022. 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
3 At the time the Individual first sought access authorization in 2021, the LSO also advised the Individual that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 12
at 667. After the Individual requested an administrative review hearing, the Administrative Judge concluded that the
Individual had mitigated the LSO’s security concerns, which were raised under Guidelines G and J. Id. at 671–73.
4 Exs. A–F were combined and submitted in a single, 17-page PDF workbook. This Decision will cite to these exhibits
by reference to the exhibit and page number within the workbook. Ex. G was submitted as a separate document. This
Decision will cite to Ex. G by reference to the exhibit and page number within the document.
- 3 -
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).
An 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). An 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. at
§ 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
As part of his 2022 access authorization adjudication, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE-
consultant psychologist (Prior DOE Psychologist) in March 2022. Ex. 12 at 119. The Prior DOE
Psychologist noted that the Individual had been arrested for six alcohol-related incidents, which
included four Driving Under the Influence (DUI) or Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) charges,
with the most recent to the 2022 evaluation occurring in July 2021. Id. at 207–09. The Prior DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, moderate, in early remission. Id. at 210. Prior
to the November 2022 hearing, the Individual completed an intensive outpatient treatment program
(IOP), which met for nine hours a week for sixteen weeks, an aftercare program, which met once
a week for sixteen weeks, and attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings twice weekly. Id.
at 670, 672. At the November 2022 hearing, the Prior DOE Psychologist testified that the
Individual had put forth sufficient evidence of rehabilitation. Id. at 605.
As noted above, after his access authorization was granted following the November 2022 hearing,
the Individual was charged with Battery On A Household Member in September 2023 and
admitted to relapsing in July and September 2023. Ex. 1 at 5. During the December 2023
evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual reported that he relapsed with alcohol in
July 2023 “[o]ut of grief from the death of his uncle.” Ex. 10 at 68. The Individual also represented
that he had not “felt an urge to drink” since the last time he consumed alcohol in September 2023.
Id. Directly after the December 2023 evaluation, the Individual underwent a “Phosphatidyl
Ethanol” (PEth) laboratory test to detect recent alcohol consumption. Id. The results of the
Individual’s PEth test were negative. Id.
In the psychological report (Report) issued after the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed
the Individual with AUD, moderate, based on the Individual’s “extensive alcohol history[,]
including four DUI/DWI’s, three treatments, extensive ongoing alcohol abstinence interventions,
and [the Prior DOE Psychologist]’s March 8, 2022 diagnosis of moderately severe [AUD] with
specific rehabilitation elements[.]” Id. at 72. The DOE Psychologist indicated that the Individual
met five diagnostic criteria for AUD, and cited the Individual’s (1) “unsuccessful control” over his
- 4 -
efforts to cut down on alcohol, (2) “history of binge drinking and requiring extensive structure to
maintain sobriety,” (3) “craving when around alcohol or alcohol using friends,” (4) “two episodes
of recurrent use despite March 2022 recommendations by [the Prior DOE Psychologist],” and (5)
“persistent interpersonal difficulties.” Id. at 73.
The DOE Psychologist recommended that to demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation of AUD,
the Individual should demonstrate alcohol abstinence for twenty-four months, participate in AA
for two years at a minimum of three meetings per week, maintain an AA sponsorship, provide
monthly PEth tests, and continue in the [Fitness for Duty (FFD)] program.” Id. at 74. The DOE
Psychologist also recommended that the Individual “resolve all legal disputes related to the
September 2023 alcohol use,” and “obtain psychodynamically informed psychotherapy for a better
understanding of what motivates his alcohol use.” Id.
At the hearing, the Individual’s AA sponsor, who has been sober for twenty-nine years, testified
that he has known the Individual for “about a year,” and that the Individual is currently on Step 4
of the program. Tr. at 22, 24. He indicated that, although he has not met the Individual in-person,
the Individual calls him two or three times per week. Id. at 25, 27. He testified that, to the best of
his knowledge, the Individual has not consumed alcohol since September 2, 2023, but noted that
the Individual did reach out to him once after feeling the urge to consume alcohol after a “tough
day.” Id. at 26–28. The AA sponsor further stated that he is optimistic about the Individual’s
likelihood of remaining sober because of the “diligenc[e] that [the Individual] shows in contacting
[him] and . . . reading the [AA Big Book].” Id. at 29.
The Individual’s ex-wife, who was married to the Individual for five years, testified that, although
they are divorced now, the Individual still maintains a close relationship with her daughter (his
stepdaughter).5 Id. at 33–34. She indicated that both herself and her daughter see the Individual
two or three times per week, and she had not seen him consume alcohol in the nine months
preceding the date of the hearing. Id. at 34, 36. She noted that the Individual told her that he
“wanted to be better” for his stepdaughter and his job, and he didn’t “have any plans on drinking.”
Id. at 37.
The Individual’s partner testified that she has known the Individual for two years, and they have a
9-month-old son together. Id. at 42–43. She stated that the only time she witnessed the Individual
consume alcohol was the night of September 2, 2023, and “since then, he’s been sober.”6 Id. at 44.
She further testified that the Individual has told her that he “does enjoy going to the [various
alcohol treatment] meetings” and is able to “talk about what he goes through” during the meetings.
Id. at 45. The partner indicated that neither herself nor the Individual keep alcohol in their homes.
Id. at 46.
5 Although the daughter is the ex-wife’s daughter, and the Individual’s stepdaughter, both of them referred to her as
his daughter. Tr. at 33.
6 Although the Individual’s partner testified that she witnessed the Individual consume alcohol on the night of
September 2, 2023, the Individual testified that he was with another woman the night of the incident. See Tr. at 59.
- 5 -
The Individual’s direct supervisor, who has worked with the Individual for approximately three
years, testified that the Individual’s “performance at work is exceptional.” Id. at 50–51. He
described the Individual as his “right-hand man,” and stated that he has never “smelled [alcohol]
on [the Individual].” Id. at 52–53. He asserted that the Individual has “dedicated his life” to his
son and stepdaughter and is “completely done with [alcohol].” Id. at 53–54. The supervisor further
indicated that he believes the Individual to be stable, trustworthy, and reliable. Id. at 54.
In addition to this testimony, the Individual also presented letters from his therapist, supervisor,
and AA assistant group leader. Ex. C; Ex. E; Ex. F. The therapist’s letter indicated that the
Individual has been attending weekly individual counseling sessions with her since November 14,
2023. Ex. C at 14. She stated that the Individual has been “working on relapse prevention with
new positive coping strategies[,]” and “find[ing] the root cause for his alcohol use.” Id. She also
stated that the Individual “has been cooperative, present, and motivated in all sessions and his hard
work is noticeable.” Id. The supervisor, an employee for twenty-five years, stated in his letter that
the Individual is “visually respected among his peers” and “exceeds his current position.” Ex. E at
16. The AA assistant group leader stated in his letter that, “approximately one year ago,” the
Individual “presented himself to do community service” and “fulfilled that obligation within a
month and a half.” Ex. F at 17. He further stated that the Individual “has presented himself at the
club at least two times a week[,]” and “shares what brought him here . . . .” Id. He also asserted
that he is “sure of [the Individual’s] sincerity and desires.” Id.
The Individual confirmed that he first relapsed in July 2023 after his uncle passed away. Tr. at 60.
Regarding his second relapse in September 2023, he asserted that he only consumed alcohol
because he “was really stressed out” due to an “overwhelming” situation at the time.7 Id. at 57. He
stated that approximately one week after the incident, “the charges were dropped due to [his ex-
girlfriend’s noncooperation] with the law.” Id. at 59. The Individual asserted that he told his ex-
girlfriend that he “didn’t want any contact with her” after this, and he last heard from her a few
months ago, but declined to answer her text message.8 Id. at 59, 63–64.
After the Individual reported the September 2023 incident to the LSO, he was placed in a six-
month FFD program. Id. at 67. As part of the FFD, he received daily drug and alcohol screenings,
which the Individual asserted were all negative.9 Id. at 67, 84. He was also required to attend six-
week and twelve-week Employee Assistance Program (EAP) alcohol awareness and education
7 The Individual indicated that in December 2022, he moved in with his now-ex girlfriend after thinking that his
current partner ended their relationship. Tr. at 58. However, several months later, he learned that his current partner
was pregnant with his child, and on the day of the September 2023 incident, he “[came] clean” to his now ex-girlfriend
about his current partner’s pregnancy. Id. at 58–59.
8 The Individual stated that his ex-girlfriend “occasionally” consumed alcohol, which was likely “one of the
contributors towards [his] relapse.” Tr. at 62.
9 The Individual asserted that if he had tested positive for drugs or alcohol at any point, he would have been placed on
leave. Tr. at 84. The EAP counselor also testified that she believed she would have heard if the Individual tested
positive during the FFD. Id. at 14–15.
- 6 -
classes, which he successfully completed.10 Id. at 67–68. The Individual submitted the results of
twelve PEth tests taken between September 28, 2023, and June 4, 2024, all of which were negative,
except for the September 2023 test.11 Ex B.
The Individual testified that he began attending AA again the weekend after the September 2023
incident.12 Tr. at 74. He stated that his attendance has varied every week because of commitments
to his children, but he typically attends between one and two sessions every week. Id. at 77. He
asserted that he plans to attend AA for the rest of his life because he “stopped caring” after he left
before. Id. at 78.
The Individual testified that he also began seeing a therapist for weekly sessions starting in
November 2023. Id. at 69–70. He stated that he told the therapist that he wanted to figure out “what
was under [his addiction],” including the underlying “mental [and] emotional factors,” and he has
since experienced a “breakthrough.” Id. He indicated that these sessions have “touched on some
very sensitive emotions” and taught him “ways of trying to calm [himself].” Id. at 70–71. He
stated that he wants to keep attending therapy “as long as possible,” and he won’t stop “anytime
soon.” Id. at 71.
The Individual testified that he started attending telehealth IOP treatment sessions in February
2024. Id. He stated that, although he originally attended three, three-hour meetings per week,
because his insurance no longer covers the program, he reduced his attendance to two weekly
meetings approximately one month before the hearing. Id. at 72. He also noted that successful
completion of the IOP requires attendance at forty-four meetings. Id. The Individual submitted an
email from the IOP’s executive director, which indicated that the Individual successfully
completed the program as of the hearing date. Ex. G at 1. The IOP’s executive director stated that
the Individual “had good attendance” and “learned skills to regulate emotions, theories regarding
the brain, distress tolerance, cognitive distortions and more.” Id. The executive director also
asserted that the Individual “has been cooperative and volunteers his input to many lessons.” Id.
The Individual testified that he plans to enroll in an aftercare program, which meets twice per
week. Tr. at 73. He also indicated that he is “pushing [himself] to go into a SMART recovery
program,” but he has not attended a meeting yet. Id. at 80.
The Individual testified that “maybe subconsciously, . . . [he] probably didn’t let go of the idea of
drinking” during his previous attempt at sobriety. Id. at 65. However, he stated that he has “purpose
now” in life, which includes looking after his son and stepdaughter, the latter of which was recently
10 The record includes the Individual’s Certificate of Completion for the six-week EAP class, dated November 2, 2023,
and the twelve-week EAP class, dated March 7, 2024. Ex. A at 1–2.
11 The Individual’s September 28, 2023, PEth test result was positive at a level of 44 ng/mL. Ex. B. After the hearing,
the DOE Psychologist explained that this result “is consistent with [the Individual] having stopped drinking and the
alcohol . . . working its way out of his system.” Ex. 14 at 1. The DOE Psychologist further noted that ““this test shows
evidence that he had drunk [alcohol] within the last [thirty] days.” Id.
12 The record includes an AA attendance log that demonstrates the Individual’s attendance at sixteen AA meetings
from March to June 2024. Ex. D at 15. The Individual stated that he did not start documenting his attendance before
March 2024 because he was not aware of the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation to record such attendance until
that time. Tr. at 73.
- 7 -
hospitalized. Id. at 65, 87. He asserted that he is “very confident in [himself] now to stay sober,”
and that he “want[s] to have a healthy life.” Id. at 85–86. The Individual stated that he is in a better
position now to deal with tragic events because of the “skills that [he’s] learned [through the] IOP,”
which has allowed him to “get[] to the root of [the] problem.” Id. at 88. He indicated that he has a
strong support system in place, which includes three people in AA that he “talk[s] a lot to daily,”
his AA sponsor, his partner, his stepdaughter, and the EAP program. Id. at 89.
The Individual’s EAP counselor testified that the six-week alcohol awareness and education EAP
class primarily focused on education and “raising one’s awareness as to their relationship with
alcohol.” Id. at 12. Although the class did not have an abstinence requirement, the counselor
testified that the Individual informed her he had been abstinent since the night of his arrest in
September 2023. Id. at 12, 14. She also testified that she would have heard if the Individual had
tested positive for alcohol during the FFD, which did require alcohol testing. Id. at 14–15. The
counselor also noted that, although the Individual already completed the twelve-week alcohol
awareness and education class in March 2024, he still attends the class as an alumnus. Id. at 15.
She continued that the Individual is “positive” in the group classes and often discusses his journey
through recovery. Id. at 16. She indicated that she believes the Individual understands the nature
of his AUD, and that it is his long-term goal to remain sober. Id. at 17. She also noted that, although
the Individual has “gone through an enormous amount of stress” after a car accident and his
stepdaughter’s recent hospitalization, he still “reaches out to . . . the recovery community” and has
not relapsed. Id. at 18–19. The counselor indicated that she is optimistic about the Individual’s
likelihood of remaining sober. Id. at 17.
The DOE Psychologist testified that, at the time he evaluated the Individual in December 2023,
the Individual was not yet in early remission because “early remission [requires] between three
and twelve months of no symptoms of [AUD],” and the Individual was still “having strong
craving[s]” at the time. Id. at 97. However, the DOE Psychologist explained that the Individual is
now in early remission because he is nine-months sober and “making great progress.” Id. at 98.
He further testified that, unlike the Individual’s previous attempt at sobriety, he is now
“surrounding himself with people that will support him,” and has “more of a purpose for others.”
Id. at 101. The DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual did not consume alcohol after his
stepdaughter’s hospitalization, which he believed was indicative of the “solidness in his relapse
prevention program.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist stated that, although the Individual is not attending exactly three AA
meetings per week as he recommended in his Report, he still attends at least two AA meetings per
week, is “committed to [attending] AA [for] the rest of his life,” has “continued [EAP] contacts
with [the EAP counselor],” and is in “treatment with [his therapist].” Id. at 99–100. Therefore,
because the Individual has “at least three contacts per week that are AA or IOP[-]related,” the DOE
Psychologist concluded that he “fulfills the spirit as well as the letter of [the treatment]
requirement,” especially considering the Individual’s “complex schedule.” Id. Further, although
the Report included a two-year abstinence and AA attendance requirement, at the hearing, the
DOE Psychologist reduced this requirement to twelve months “for the purpose . . . not to praise
[him] for the effort,” but to “acknowledge” his effort. Id. at 103. Thus, the DOE Psychologist
explained that, although the Individual is not yet rehabilitated, he is “well on the road” to meeting
all rehabilitation recommendations in the Report by September 2024. Id. at 102–04. The DOE
- 8 -
Psychologist noted that the Individual’s AUD would be in “sustained remission” at that time “if
the [elements] stay in place.” Id. The DOE Psychologist also asserted that the Individual is
reformed because he “recognizes the severity of his alcohol use and has documented stopping
drinking now since . . . September 2, 2023.”13 Id. at 106.
The DOE Psychologist acknowledged that opining on the risk of relapse is an “art,” but stated that
if the Individual “maintains the efforts he’s doing now,” his risk of relapse is low. Id. at 105. The
DOE Psychologist also testified that, on a one-to-five scale, with one being excellent, and five
being very poor, the Individual’s prognosis is a two, which would correspond to “good.” Id. at
107–08.
V. ANALYSIS
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline G though the following
conditions:
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.
Regarding factor (a), the Individual relapsed twice within the year prior to the hearing, and his
AUD is not yet in sustained remission. Furthermore, because the Individual’s relapses occurred
after he was no longer subject to the treatment requirements related to his first access authorization
adjudication, I have doubts as to whether the Individual will maintain his positive lifestyle changes
if his clearance is restored, and he again is no longer subject to such requirements. Therefore, I
cannot conclude that so much time has passed, the behavior was so infrequent, or the behavior
13 At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist stated that, as he understands it, “reformation means recognizing that the
person has a problem with alcohol or drugs and stop[s] using,” while rehabilitation “is the completion of effective
treatment.” Tr. at 106. He further asserted that psychologists have recently “collapsed [the analysis] just to
rehabilitation.” Id. However, in the Report, the DOE Psychologist indicated that his abstinence/treatment
recommendations were necessary for the Individual to demonstrate reformation. Ex. 10 at 74.
- 9 -
occurred under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
Individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. As such, I find that the Individual
has not mitigated the security concerns under factor (a).
Regarding factor (b), it is evident that the Individual acknowledges his maladaptive alcohol use,
and I find his testimony regarding his commitment to sobriety, treatment, and his new-found
purpose in life to be sincere. However, as explained above, the Individual’s prior relapses followed
the removal of treatment controls, and I have doubts as to how he would respond to the removal
of such controls now. Additionally, the DOE’s Psychologist’s revised treatment recommendations
require one-year of abstinence and AA/IOP attendance.14 Although the Individual may be “well
on the road” to meeting these recommendations by September 2024, he had not satisfied them
yet.15 Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under factor (b).
Regarding factor (c), although the Individual is actively participating in AA and recently
completed his IOP, he admitted to relapsing twice within the past year after having previously
received treatment and has not yet met the DOE Psychologist’s revised one-year AA/IOP treatment
recommendation. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under
factor (c).
Regarding factor (d), although the Individual competed an IOP and demonstrated his abstinence
since the September 2023 relapse, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual both
participate in AA and remain abstinent for a full year. Accordingly, because the Individual has not
yet met the DOE Psychologist’s one-year treatment and abstinence recommendation, I find the
Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under factor (d).
Accordingly, I find that none of the mitigating conditions have been satisfied, and that the
Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
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 not 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 not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
14 As explained previously, although the DOE Psychologist recommended two years of abstinence from alcohol in the
Report, at the hearing, he revised his recommendation to one year.
15 As noted previously, although the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual was reformed because he
recognized that he had an alcohol problem and stopped consuming, this differed from his Report, which listed the
treatment/abstinence recommendations as necessary steps to achieve reformation. In any event, regardless of the
Individual’s recognition of his alcohol problem, he has not yet demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
alcohol consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
- 10 -
Janet R. H. Fishman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals