PSH-24-0088

*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 27, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0088
)
_________________________________________ )
Issued: June 11, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Janet R. H. Fishman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (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 a member of the armed services and is employed by the DOE in a position that
requires him to hold an access authorization. On August 30, 2023, the Individual’s supervisor
submitted a Personnel Security Information Report (PSIR) to the Local Security Office (LSO),
which contained his observations of the Individual’s behavior, from March 2023 to July 2023,
along with the observations of three additional sources, all of whom believed the Individual’s
behavior involved “apparent or suspected alcohol abuse.” Exhibit (Ex.) 11 at 1–5.2
In November 2023, the LSO issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual, which sought
additional information about the events described in the PSIR and sought information about the
Individual’s alcohol consumption. Ex. 10. In the LOI, the Individual reported that he consumes
enough alcohol to register over the legal limit approximately three times a month, and he last drank
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 On September 13, 2023, the Individual’s supervisor submitted an email to the LSO containing observations omitted
from the August 2023, PSIR. Ex. 11 at 4–8.
- 2 -
to intoxication a year and a half prior, when he split an 18-pack of beer while watching football
games. Id. at 2–3. Because of security concerns identified in the Individual’s LOI responses, the
LSO referred the Individual for a psychological evaluation. Ex. 9.
In December 2023, the Individual underwent an evaluation by a DOE consultant psychologist
(DOE Psychologist), who issued a report of his findings (the Report). Ex. 9. As a part of his
evaluation, the Individual underwent alcohol testing. Id. at 12, 18. Based on his evaluation and his
review of the results of the Individual’s alcohol testing,3 the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the
Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
Id. at 15.
Due to the unresolved security concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol consumption, the LSO
informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable information that created
substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex. 5 at 1–3. In a Summary
of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the
derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and
Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 4–7.
In March 2024, the Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded the
Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from four witnesses: the Individual, his wife, the
Individual’s Counselor, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, Case No. PSH-24-
0088 (Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted 12 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 12. The
Individual submitted one exhibit, marked as Exhibit A.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
and Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 5 at 4–6.
A. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
Under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines, “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. Conditions
that could raise a security concern under Guideline G include: “alcohol-related incidents at work,
such as reporting for work or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition” and a “diagnosis by a
duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist,
psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(b) and (d).
3 After his psychological evaluation, the Individual was administered Ethyl Glucoronide (EtG) and
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) tests. Ex. 5 at 4.
- 3 -
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon information regarding the Individual’s alcohol
consumption provided by the DOE Psychologist. Ex. 5 at 4–5. The LSO cited the opinion of DOE
Psychologist that the Individual has Alcohol Use Disorder, “with no evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation.” Id. at 4. The LSO also relied upon the Individual’s positive Ethyl Glucoronide (EtG)
test, at a level of 47,196 ng/mL, and the Individual’s positive Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, at
a level of 696 ng/mL, as evidence of heavy alcohol consumption. Id. The LSO further relied upon
the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that to show rehabilitation or reformation, the Individual should
“detoxify from alcohol under medical management, abstain from alcohol for over 12 months, and
complete an outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, along with the program’s aftercare services,
such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA).” Id. at 4–5. Finally, the LSO relied upon the “alcohol-
related observations” reported in the August 2023, PSIR. Id. at 5–6.
B. Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgement, 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. Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline E include:
“deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information,
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or
mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security
eligibility determination, or other official government representative.” Id. at ¶ 16(b).
In citing Guideline E, the LSO indicated that the Individual provided the following “false or
misleading information to an employer, security official, and/or mental health professional
involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination”:
1. On December 4, 2023, the DOE Psychologist evaluated [the Individual]. In his
report dated December 18, 2023, [the DOE Psychologist] concluded that [the
Individual’s] self-report of his alcohol consumption was not consistent with his
laboratory results, which are indicative of heavy alcohol use. [The DOE
Psychologist] opined that [the Individual] either unintentionally underestimated
and/or intentionally minimized the amount and frequency of alcohol that he
consumes;
a. During the evaluation, [the Individual] reported that he drank two (2) beers
the day before his laboratory testing, however, the EtG results are
indicative of heavy drinking within the previous two (2) days, or light
drinking the day of the test;
b. During the evaluation, [the Individual] reported that he has only consumed
two (2) beers per week for the last four (4) months, however, the PEth
results suggest that [the Individual] is consuming approximately six (6)
drinks a day or had several large binges over the previous three (3) weeks.
- 4 -
2. In his November 2023 LOI, [the Individual] noted he was last intoxicated a year
and a half prior when he split an 18-pack of beer while watching football games.
However, he also reported he consumes enough alcohol to register over the legal
limit three (3) times monthly.
Ex. 5 at 6–7. Considering the information cited by the LSO, I find the LSO properly invoked
Guidelines G and E.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
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 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
In the August 2023, PSIR, the Individual’s supervisor reported that in March 2023, he called the
Individual, while the Individual was on leave, and asked him to meet him off-site to assist with a
security issue involving a fellow servicemember. Ex. 11 at 3. Upon meeting the Individual, the
Individual’s supervisor observed that the Individual’s “pupils were dilated, his speech was slower
than usual, he was more combative [than] usual, and his breath smelled of alcohol.” Id. The
supervisor also reported that when he later questioned the Individual about his condition, the
Individual admitted he consumed alcohol earlier that day, “but stopped several hours before” he
received the call. Id.
When questioned about the March 2023 incident in the LOI, the Individual reported that before
the incident, he received a call from his supervisor around midnight. Ex. 10 at 1. At that time, he
“performed an assessment of alcohol consumed vs. hours after [his] last drink and evaluated [he]
was within legal limits to drive.” Id. The Individual also reported that he attributed his “emotional
reaction” at the time he was called to respond to the security issue to “relationship issues with his
- 5 -
wife,” and his “general frustration with being tired.” Id. The Individual reported that although he
had consumed alcohol, he felt he was “safe to respond, within legal limits, and performed [his]
duties satisfactorily.” Id.
The PSIR also indicates that another source reported that in April 2023, the Individual drove to a
medical office, where the source’s wife works as a “medical professional,” and asked the source’s
wife to treat an injury he suffered. Ex. 11 at 3. The source also observed that the Individual:
made inappropriate and unwelcome suggestions to [his wife], and then resisted
leaving her place of employment when she told him to leave while exhibiting
symptoms of intoxication in her judgment. [The Individual] rejected offers from
[the source and his] wife to transport him.
Id.
In the LOI, the Individual reported that he felt “hurt” from the source’s interpretation of his
behavior in April 2023 because he did not think it “provided the complete perspective, was not
factual, and the situation was never discussed with [him] by involved individuals who were
friends.” Ex. 10 at 11. The Individual also reported that before the incident, he “had two alcoholic
beverages (12 oz beers) while smoking food over a six-hour period earlier in the day.” Id. at 12.
The PSIR indicates that in July 2023, the Individual’s supervisor and three other sources, observed
the Individual inform his supervisor that he intended to end his military career because he did not
believe his supervisor respected him. Ex. 11 at 3. The sources reported that during this interaction,
they “judged that [the Individual] sounded intoxicated” because he had “slower/slurred speech,”
and was “incapable of rational conversation.” Id. The PSIR also indicates that when the
Individual’s supervisor later questioned the Individual about his behavior, he “denied that alcohol
substantially affected his behavior” and “stated that ongoing, long-term issues with his wife
affected his state of mind” during the interaction. Id.
In the LOI, the Individual reported that at the time of the July 2023, incident, he was frustrated
with his supervisor and “reacted negatively when [he] was not kept informed of initial actions
taken to address personnel issues.” Ex. 10 at 2. The Individual also reported that since the July
2023, event, he has “apologized several times and taken meaningful actions with [his] boss to
ensure a similar occurrence does not happen again.” Id. The Individual also reported that his
behavior in July 2023 was based on thinking he could “openly vent” to people he trusted, and [“n]o
alcohol was involved.” Id.
Regarding his alcohol consumption, the Individual reported in the LOI that he started consuming
alcohol at age 21. Ex. 10 at 2. He also reported that he only drinks on Sundays, while watching
football games, and typically consumes “either two 12 oz. beers or two 6 oz. glasses of wine with
dinner, or when watching a sporting event.” Id. He also reported that it takes “6-8 beers or 3-4
glasses of wine” for him to become intoxicated, and he last drank to intoxication one-and-a-half
years ago, when he and a family member split an 18-pack of beers over a three-hour period. Id. at
3. He also reported that he “consume[s] enough alcohol to register over the legal limit of .08”
“[m]aybe, three times monthly, but only when not driving.” Id. at 2. The Individual also reported
- 6 -
that he did not believe he had a substance abuse problem that was affecting him professionally or
personally, but “these actions have made it clear that I needed to take personal actions to address
how I am handling stress and/or how my internalizing stress is affecting others.” Id. at 4. In
November 2023, the Individual enrolled in “life stress management counseling” through his
employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Ex. 10 at 2; Ex. 3 at 3.
During his December 2023 psychological evaluation, the Individual reported that the last time he
was intoxicated was a year and a half prior, when he consumed six 12-ounce beers, while watching
football over a three-hour period. Ex. 9 at 11. The Individual also reported that for the past four
months, he had limited the amount and frequency of alcohol he consumed to “two drinks a week,
often when watching football on Sunday.” Id. at 10–11. He reported he changed his alcohol
consumption because of his wife’s “hypersensitivity” toward his alcohol use and her preference
that there be no alcohol in the home. Id. at 11. He also reported that reducing his alcohol
consumption had decreased his wife’s stress and improved their marital relationship. Id. He stated
that the last time he consumed alcohol was the day before his assessment, on December 3, 2023,
when he consumed two beers while watching football. Id. at 12.
As part of the psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist had the Individual undergo two
laboratory tests: an EtG test and a PEth test.4 Id. at 12. The results of the Individual’s EtG test were
positive at a level of 47,196 ng/mL,5 which the DOE Psychologist opined was indicative of “heavy
alcohol consumption within 96 hours prior to his labs and/or light drinking the day of the test.” Id.
The results of the Individual’s PEth test were positive at a level of 696 ng/mL, which the DOE
Psychologist opined, indicates the Individual “consumed significant amounts of alcohol over the
three prior weeks (e.g. 6 drinks a day or several large binges).” Id. The DOE Psychologist
diagnosed the Individual with an Alcohol Use Disorder, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 15. The DOE Psychologist also opined that based on the results
of the Individual’s alcohol tests, the Individual “either unintentionally underestimated or
intentionally minimized the amount and frequency of alcohol that he consumes.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist recommended that to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation the Individual enter and complete an outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program and
complete the program’s discharge recommendations. Id. at 15. The DOE Psychologist also
recommended the Individual seek treatment at the American Society of Addiction Medicine
(ASAM) Level 1, which consists of individual and group counseling over 8–15 weeks, or Level
2.1 care, which consists of individual and group counseling, 9–20 hours of weekly treatment, 3–5
days a week, for 8–20 weeks. Id. In addition, the DOE Psychologist recommended the Individual
enroll in an aftercare program, such as AA, and undergo PEth testing every two months, for 12
months, to demonstrate abstinence from alcohol. Id.
4 The DOE Psychologist testified that an EtG is a “biomarker” for alcohol that is analyzed through one’s urine, and
the test can detect alcohol use “in the last 48 to 96 hours for an individual.” Tr. at 145. He also explained that a PEth
test is a blood test that detects alcohol use “over the last two to four weeks.” Id.
5 In the Report, the DOE Psychologist explained that the cutoff for a positive EtG result is 250 ng/mL, but “forensic
professionals recommend using 500 ng/mL as a positive result for alcohol consumption,” and guidance from the
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) indicates EtG results “higher than 1,000
ng/mL are considered a ‘high’ positive and are indicative of heavy drinking within the previous two days or light
drinking the same day of the test.” Ex. 9 at 12.
- 7 -
In his request for a hearing, the Individual wrote that his lack of transparency was due to his
“alcohol dependence and mental health issues,” and he wrote that he enrolled in an outpatient
alcohol rehabilitation program, during which he attended weekly individual counseling sessions,
and underwent bi-weekly urine testing. Ex. 3 at 3–4. With his request for a hearing, the Individual
submitted a March 20, 2024, letter from the outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, which
indicated he underwent seven bi-weekly urine tests that produced negative results. Id. The
Individual also reported that during his counseling sessions, he was diagnosed with “alcohol
dependence, anxiety, and depression.” Id. at 4. He also reported he had not consumed alcohol since
February 11, 2024. Id.
During the hearing, the Individual’s wife testified that she has known the Individual for over 20
years, and she has been married to the Individual for 16 years. Tr. at 13–14. She stated she and the
Individual have lived together the entire period of their marriage. Id. at 14–15. As for the
Individual’s alcohol consumption, she stated the Individual used alcohol to help him sleep at night.
Id. at 15. She stated she was aware of the alcohol-related incidents detailed in the PSIR and that
she noticed the Individual’s stress level increased between March and July of 2023, but the
Individual did not talk to her about his experiences at work. Id. at 19–20. As for the Individual’s
alcohol treatment, she stated she knew the Individual was receiving counseling at the outpatient
alcohol rehabilitation program, and she knew the Individual underwent alcohol testing as a part of
the program. Id. at 56–57. She stated the Individual’s last drink was in February 2024, and they no
longer keep alcohol in the home. Id. at 62–63. She also stated that since the Individual has stopped
drinking, he has lost weight, and their relationship has improved. Id. at 63–64.
The Individual’s Counselor testified that, beginning in February 2024, she provided weekly
counseling sessions to the Individual during his treatment at the outpatient alcohol rehabilitation
program. Tr. at 23–24. She stated the Individual’s counseling sessions were educational and
included discussing the meaning of addiction and understanding denial. Id. at 24. She also testified
that the Individual “came from a position of denial about his Alcohol Use Disorder, which is
expected; not realizing the extent of his use and the impact that it had,” but he later came to
understand that he had an alcohol problem. Id. at 29–30. She continued that “it is pretty normal for
a person to not be aware and, therefore, be in denial, not be aware of the extent of a problem.” Id.
at 30. She also stated she did not review the DOE Psychologist’s Report. Id. at 31. At the time of
the hearing, the Individual was scheduled to complete the outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program
on May 20, 2024. Tr. at 117, 159.
The Individual’s Counselor further testified that after performing an assessment of the Individual
at the start of the program, the outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program diagnosed the Individual
with Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild. Id. at 31–32. She stated that, using the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5), criteria, and the Individual’s counseling and
testing with her program as a benchmark, the Individual would qualify for a diagnosis of Alcohol
Use Disorder, in “early remission,” on May 20, 2024. Id. at 32–33, 37. She explained that the
DSM-5 requires three months of abstinence to start remission, and she defines full remission as 12
months of abstinence. Id. at 37. She stated the Individual “came in at the outpatient level. So, there
would not be any expectation of further drug and alcohol treatment.” Id. at 33–34. She
recommended the Individual continue seeking care with his employer’s EAP to improve his
- 8 -
coping. Id. at 34–35. She stated that after having received three months of treatment, the
Individual’s prognosis is good, if he continues treatment with his EAP. Id. at 36. She also opined
that if the Individual wishes to maintain his abstinence, he should get involved in “support
activities,” where he is around sober people. Id. at 36. She also explained that after three to five
months of abstinence, there is a risk of relapse because people “think they have everything under
control,” and they are “more likely to put themselves in situations where they could relapse.” Id.
at 38–39. She concluded the Individual is fully aware of her concerns with his risk of relapse and
she has cautioned him in this area. Id. at 39.
The Individual testified that before the April 2023 incident, he would consume a couple of beers a
day and would drink socially. Id. at 89. He explained that in April 2023, when he got a new
supervisor at work, his level of stress increased, and he increased his alcohol consumption to
manage his stress. Id. at 80–83, 85. He stated that approximately six months before his December
2023 psychological evaluation he typically consumed, on average, four to five alcoholic beverages
during the week, and approximately eight alcoholic beverages a day, during weekends. Id. at 76,
135. The Individual acknowledged that during his psychological evaluation, he was not truthful
with the DOE Psychologist because he minimized his alcohol consumption. Id. at 43, 78–79. He
continued that he told the DOE Psychologist that he did not believe he had a problem with alcohol.
Id. at 78–79, 98–99. The Individual stated that he believed he had a problem managing stress, so
in November 2023, he enrolled in “stress management” counseling through his employer’s EAP.
Id. at 99–100. He stated his alcohol consumption didn’t change as a result of this counseling
because the counseling “wasn’t working on the real problem that [he] had, which was the alcohol.”
Id. at 101. He stated that after he enrolled in the outpatient alcohol rehabilitation program, and met
with the Counselor, he realized he had a problem with alcohol. Id. at 104. The Individual stated
that since he started therapy, he has found the benefits of being open and honest about his problem.
Id. at 117. The Individual submitted documentary evidence he underwent blood testing in March
2024, April 2024, and May 2024, all of which showed negative results for alcohol. Ex. 3 at 11; Ex.
A at 1–4.
The Individual further testified that to meet the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations,
he will continue to abstain from alcohol for one year and continue some form of counseling for
the rest of his life. Id. at 118–20. He stated that staff at the outpatient rehabilitation program will
provide him with resources he can use to obtain additional alcohol treatment at the end of their
program. Id. at 118. He also stated he has support mechanisms in place to help him maintain his
sobriety. Id. at 130. The Individual continued that he has reassessed his personal values, that he
will lean heavier on home and family for support, and that he now takes more pride out of being a
good father and husband, not just being the best soldier. Id. at 130. He stated he is going to continue
the stress management counseling through his employer’s EAP. Id. at 118.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after he evaluated the Individual, the Individual underwent
EtG and PEth testing. Id. at 144–45. He stated that he believed the Individual minimized the level
of alcohol he consumed because the results of his laboratory tests reflected a much higher use of
alcohol than the Individual reported.6 Tr. at 147–48. However, he explained that “[m]inimization
6 As to the interpretation of the Individual’s test results, the DOE Psychologist testified that he is “not a pathologist,”
and he typically relies upon “journal studies [and] scientific studies that sort of give you a range of the amount of
- 9 -
[of one’s alcohol use], denial, [and] putting the blame on other people for actions is very common,
very consistent with alcohol use disorder.” Id. at 150. The DOE Psychologist acknowledged that
it is possible that someone with Alcohol Use Disorder can believe they consumed less alcohol than
they actually did, even though, theoretically, they should be aware of their own behavior. Id. at
151, 153.
The DOE Psychologist further testified that based on the testimony the Individual provided during
the hearing, the Individual either is, or will soon be, in early remission from his Alcohol Use
Disorder. Id. at 160. He asserted the Individual will not be in “sustained remission” from his
diagnosis until he has abstained from alcohol for 12 months. Id. He continued that until the
Individual has been in “sustained remission,” he is at a high risk of relapse. Id. at 160–61. He stated
that, just as the Individual’s Counselor explained, people are, initially, able to limit their alcohol
consumption, but then they “get confident,” and exceed those limits. Id. at 162. He also stated that
the Individual’s acceptance of responsibility for his behavior is a “positive sign” toward his
recovery from Alcohol Use Disorder. Id. at 164. He recommended that the Individual continue
some form of treatment and that his treatment include a mechanism to validate his abstinence from
alcohol during that time. Id. at 161.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
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.
alcohol use” reflected in the laboratory results. Tr. at 167–68. As to the PEth test specifically, the DOE Psychologist
testified he was not familiar with the test, and he needed “some assistance” in understanding and interpreting the
Individual’s test results. Id. at 170. He also discussed the Individual’s test results with a peer, who is a psychologist
also and has consulted with DOE in the past but has a “heavy biology background.” Id. at 167–68, 170.
- 10 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
None of the mitigating conditions under Guideline G have been met by the Individual in this case.
Regarding the first mitigating factor, the Individual testified he typically consumed alcohol while
watching sporting events, but he increased his alcohol consumption in April 2023 to manage stress
at his job and to help him sleep. Further, although the Individual testified that his increased alcohol
consumption was due to his work stress caused by a new supervisor, that stress has not been
alleviated because he is in the same job with the same supervisor, and therefore the circumstances
that led to his increased consumption have not been resolved. The Individual was diagnosed with
Alcohol Use Disorder in December 2023, five months before the hearing, and the Individual
admitted to consuming alcohol as recently as February 2024, three months before the hearing. This
was not so long ago that the behavior is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the Individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. Similarly, the Individual has not met the second,
third, or fourth mitigating factors. The Individual acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use only
in February 2024. Since being diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder, the Individual has taken steps
to overcome his Alcohol Use Disorder, but as of the hearing, he has not received enough treatment
to resolve his disorder. He successfully completed six months of stress management counseling
via his employer’s EAP, he was expected to complete his outpatient alcohol treatment program a
few weeks after the hearing, and he submitted documentation of laboratory testing to support that
he has abstained from alcohol since February 2024. However, the Individual has not enrolled in
an aftercare program to continue treatment of his Alcohol Use Disorder, and the Individual has
only been abstinent from alcohol for three months, which is insufficient to demonstrate a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Finally, both the Individual’s Counselor and the DOE Psychologist testified
that the Individual is not yet in full remission from his AUD and is at significant risk of relapse
without continuing treatment. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
B. Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth seven factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E:
(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;
- 11 -
(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.
After considering the evidence, I find that none of the mitigating conditions under Guideline E
have been met by the Individual in this case.
As an initial matter, regarding the Individual’s laboratory results, the DOE Psychologist testified
that he is not a medical doctor, and there is nothing in the record to support that he is qualified to
interpret the Individual’s laboratory results. The DOE Psychologist has no training in the analysis
of the PEth test results. His claim that he consulted with a peer, who is also a psychologist, and
relied on journal studies and scientific studies that are not a part of the record does not afford me
with any opportunity to explore the basis for his interpretation. See, e.g., Personnel Security
Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0055 at 11 (2024) (stating that, similarly, the Administrative
Judge could not accept the DOE psychologist’s interpretation of the Individual’s laboratory results
because there was nothing in the record indicating the psychologist was qualified to interpret such
results). Therefore, I cannot give much weight to the opinion of the DOE Psychologist, regarding
the Individual’s level of alcohol consumption indicated by the test results.
As to mitigating factors (a) and (b), the Individual misrepresented the level of his alcohol
consumption during his evaluation and did not correct that information prior to being confronted
with his PEth test results. Also, there is also no evidence the Individual’s underreporting of his
alcohol consumption was caused, or significantly contributed to by, the advice of legal counsel or
a similar professional. Therefore, I find these mitigating conditions are not applicable in this case.
As to factor (c), although there is no evidence the Individual’s underreporting of his alcohol
consumption was a frequent occurrence, his underreporting of his alcohol consumption to the DOE
Psychologist occurred five months before the hearing, and not enough time has passed to conclude
it no longer casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. Therefore, I find
the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under ¶ 17(c).
- 12 -
As to factor (d), since being diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder, the Individual has
acknowledged that he deliberately minimized his level of alcohol consumption to the DOE
Psychologist because he believed his issues stemmed from his inability to manage stressors at
work, and not from his increased alcohol consumption. As indicated by both the Individual’s
Counselor and the DOE Psychologist, underreporting of alcohol consumption is not uncommon
among those who suffer from Alcohol Use Disorder. Although the Individual had completed three
months of treatment at the time of the hearing, he has not yet resolved his Alcohol Use Disorder
and remains at risk of relapse. As a result, I cannot find that the Individual’s deliberate
underreporting of his alcohol consumption is not likely to recur or no longer casts doubt on his
reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Therefore, I find the Individual has not mitigated the
security concerns under ¶ 17(d).
As to factor (e), the LSO did not allege that the Individual had engaged in conduct that placed him
at special risk of exploitation, manipulation, or duress. As to factor (f), there is no allegation that
the information used to form the basis of the security concerns, came from a source of questionable
reliability. As for factor (g), the security concerns raised by the LSO do not involve an allegation
the Individual was associated with anyone involved in criminal activities. Therefore, these
remaining mitigating factors are not applicable to this case.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and E 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 the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter related to Guidelines
G and E. Accordingly, I find the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security
clearance would not endanger the common defense 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.
Janet R. H. Fishman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals