PSH-24-0095

*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: April 4, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0095
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: December 19, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Steven L. Fine, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations
set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 The
present case involves an Individual who has a history of four alcohol-related arrests. This Decision
considers whether the Individual has resolved the security concerns raised by her four alcohol-
related arrests. 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
In August 2006, police arrested and charged the Individual with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)
after administering two breath alcohol tests which estimated her blood alcohol content (BAC) at
0.17% and 0.18% respectively. Exhibit (Ex.) 19 at 120‒24.
In November 2011, police cited and charged the Individual with Open Container. Ex. 18 at 115.
According to the Individual, she was a passenger in a vehicle where an open container of alcohol
was found during a routine traffic stop and was cited and fined. Ex. 18 at 116; Ex. 21 at 141.
In February 2014, police arrested and charged the Individual with Driving Under the Influence of
Liquor (DUI) and Failure to Maintain Traffic Lane. Ex. 17 at 101. Police administered two breath
alcohol tests to the Individual which both showed her BAC to be 0.15%. Ex. 17 at 102.
1 Under the regulations, “[a]ccess authorization means 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). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
-2-
On September 7, 2023, police arrested and charged the Individual with Aggravated DWI. Ex. 11
at 51. The Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual as
a result of this arrest. On September 26, 2023, the Individual responded to this LOI. Ex. 20 at
126–32. In this response, the Individual stated that from approximately 4:30 PM to 8:15 PM on
the evening of this arrest, she had consumed two full sized alcoholic drinks and one half sized
alcoholic drink over the course of approximately three and a half hours.2 Ex. 20 at 126. This
information contradicts the Individual’s statement to law enforcement at the time of her arrest
when she stated she had had one and a half drinks between 4:00 PM and 5:30 PM. Ex. 11 at 50.
At the request of the LSO, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE contract psychologist (the DOE
Psychologist). On November 17, 2023, the DOE Psychologist conducted a clinical interview of
the Individual (CI). Ex. 22 at 147. On November 29, 2023, the DOE Psychologist issued a report
in which she noted that the Individual had been evaluated by a different DOE contract psychologist
in 2014 who concluded that the Individual neither used alcohol habitually to excess nor met the
criteria for an alcohol disorder. Ex. 22 at 149. However, that DOE contract psychologist noted
that the Individual had a tendency to minimize the amount she drank when asked her consumption
by DOE personnel and medical professionals. Ex. 22 at 149. During the most recent evaluation,
the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that she abstained from consuming alcohol for one and
a half to two years after the 2014 DUI charge, but then gradually began to drink again. Ex. 22 at
149. The Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist that the last time she had consumed alcohol
was on September 17, 2023, about a week after her 2023 DWI arrest. Ex. 22 at 149. As a part of
her evaluation, the Individual was administered a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) laboratory test to
detect alcohol consumption, which was negative, corroborating her abstinence from alcohol
consumption.3 Ex. 22 at 152.
As a result of the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist wrote a report in which she opined that the
Individual did not meet sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder. Ex. 22 at 152.
However, she opined that the Individual had “demonstrated a history of impaired judgment when
under the influence of alcohol” and had “demonstrated a pattern of problematic drinking
behavior.” Ex. 22 at 152–53. The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual had not
demonstrated that she was rehabilitated or reformed but noted that she had taken court-ordered
alcohol education courses in the past and, at the time of the evaluation, the Individual had attended
approximately twenty-eight online Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. Ex. 22 at 152. The
DOE Psychologist recommended that, in order to show reformation or rehabilitation, the
Individual should: (1) complete at least one year of documented abstinence from alcohol
consumption; (2) attend AA or an intensive outpatient program (IOP); (3) if the alcohol
consumption is a response to a “known stressor,” pursue counseling with a “licensed substance
abuse trained therapist”; and (4) if the Individual remains at work, be involved with her company’s
employee assistance program (EAP). Ex. 22 at 152–53.
2 A police report indicates that the Individual was pulled over at approximately 7:51 PM. Ex. 11 at 50.
3 PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption. However,
alternative explanations should be explored following any positive finding. Ex. 23 at 167.
-3-
A. Present Administrative Review Proceeding
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to
the Individual informing her that it received derogatory information creating substantial doubt
regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. The Notification Letter further informed the
Individual that she was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the security
concerns. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21. The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded
the Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA
appointed me as 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 the Individual, her Occupational
Medicine Psychologist (OM Psychologist), her therapist (Therapist), her former supervisor, her
brother, her coworker, and the DOE Psychologist. The DOE Counsel submitted twenty-eight
exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 28. The Individual submitted eight exhibits, marked as
Exhibits A through H.
Exhibit A consists of fourteen negative PEth tests from the following dates: October 17, 2023;
November 14, 2023; December 20, 2023; January 23, 2024; February 14, 2024; March 18, 2024;
April 17, 2024; May 13, 2024; June 3, 2024; July 1, 2024; August 3, 2024; September 3, 2024;
October 1, 2024; and October 24, 2024. Ex. A at 3–49.
Exhibit B consists of copies of the Individual’s annual work performance evaluations from January
2020 to the present. Ex. B.
Exhibit C is a reference letter from a coworker dated May 21, 2024. Ex. C.
Exhibit D is a list of the Individual’s prescriptions as of October 2024. Ex. D.
Exhibit E is a log of all of the AA and SMART Recovery (SMART) meetings that the Individual
has attended. Ex. E. It indicates that the Individual began attending AA meetings on January 5,
2024, and SMART meetings on April 7, 2024. Ex. E at 1‒2.
Exhibit F is a copy of the OM Psychologist’s resume. Ex. F.
Exhibit G is a copy of the Therapist’s resume. Ex. G.
Exhibit H is a copy of the Nolle Prosequi resolving the charges from the Individual’s September
2023 arrest. Ex. H.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns (SSC)
The SSC attached to the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE creates substantial doubt concerning her eligibility for a security clearance
under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption). Under Guideline G, the LSO cited the DOE
Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual demonstrated a history of impaired judgement when
under the influence of alcohol, her four alcohol-related arrests, and her problematic alcohol use.
Ex. 1 at 6. This information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. Under
-4-
Guideline G, “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence . . . regardless of the
frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with
alcohol use disorder” and “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c).
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
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 their 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. 10 C.F.R.
§ 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 testified that she has not consumed any alcohol since September 17, 2023.
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0095 (Tr.) at 88. The next day, she had a meeting
as part of her employer’s Fitness for Duty (FFD) program, where she was evaluated by the OM
Psychologist, who informed her that as a requirement for the FFD program the Individual should
abstain from alcohol use. Tr. at 89–90. She testified that she decided to stop consuming alcohol
both because of the requirement for FFD and because she realized her job and security clearance
were more important to her than alcohol. Tr. at 89–90. The Individual explained that for now her
intention is to continue her sobriety but she would not commit to indefinite abstinence from alcohol
consumption. Tr. at 90–91, 104, 119, 123–24. She also admitted that she stated she would no
longer consume alcohol before driving during a personnel security interview (PSI) she underwent
in 2006. Tr. at 124; Ex. 27 at 389. She further admitted that during a PSI in 2014, she stated that
she did not plan to consume alcohol anymore. Tr. at 126. The Individual testified that her present
-5-
period of abstinence from alcohol was different from her prior abstinence from alcohol because
she has undergone treatment. Tr. at 126. When asked why she resumed consuming alcohol after
her 2014 DWI, the Individual said at that time she believed that she could consume alcohol in
moderation. Tr. at 128. She believes she has “learned a lot more” about alcohol than she did after
her 2014 DWI. Tr. at 129.
The Individual testified that she was deeply affected by the death of her mother in May 2022. Tr.
at 94. The Individual and her brother were her mother’s sole caretakers prior to her death and that
responsibility was very hard on her. Tr. at 94–95. She now believes that she was using alcohol
consumption as a coping mechanism for her grief. Tr. at 95. The Individual believes that her
biweekly sessions with the Therapist have helped her to learn healthier ways to deal with her grief.
Tr. at 97. The Individual testified that she has also been seeing the OM Psychologist for counseling
every other week. Tr. at 98. She said that the OM Psychologist provides her treatment related to
alcohol use including discussing what the Individual has learned in AA and SMART meetings.
Tr. at 139.
The Individual testified that she attends several online AA groups’ meetings because of her
schedule, though she does have one meeting that she prefers when it works for her schedule. Tr.
at 105, 107. The Individual has also been attending SMART meetings online. Tr. at 109. She
testified that she does not have an AA sponsor because she does not believe she has the time in her
schedule to “maintain a good relationship with a sponsor.” Tr. at 108. The Individual stated that
while she has been attending AA meetings, she is not allowed to speak at the meetings because
she does not identify as an alcoholic. Tr. at 122. However, the Individual was able to give detailed
descriptions of the concepts and coping skills she has learned from her AA and SMART meetings.
Tr. at 99–103. She testified that she does not have any friends from AA or SMART that she meets
with outside of the meetings, but she feels she has a community in both programs that she could
reach out to if she wanted to. Tr. at 141. When asked about her support system, the Individual
said that her support system consists of her medical professionals and her brother. Tr. at 141. She
elaborated, saying that one of the reasons that she enjoyed SMART was because it focused on self-
management rather than relying on others. Tr. at 141.
She claimed that she does not identify as an alcoholic “out of respect” for the three medical
professionals who did not diagnose her with an alcohol use disorder. Tr. at 122. When asked if
she felt she had a problem with alcohol, the Individual responded that “[a]lcohol has created a
problem for me.” Tr. at 123.
The OM Psychologist testified that she previously met the Individual as a part of her work in the
Human Reliability Program (HRP). Tr. at 13. The Individual, in her role as a manager, also
regularly interacted with the OM Psychologist when the Individual was concerned about the
mental health of her employees in the HRP. Tr. at 13–14. The OM Psychologist evaluated the
Individual in June 2023 as part of the Individual’s annual HRP evaluation. Tr. at 15. The OM
Psychologist next saw the Individual when she conducted an FFD evaluation shortly after the
Individual’s September 2023 DWI. Tr. at 16. As a result of the FFD evaluation, the OM
Psychologist recommended that the Individual: begin individual counseling covering her
relationship with alcohol and her stress and anxiety; engage in a program such as AA or SMART;
abstain from consuming alcohol; and undergo PEth testing to monitor her compliance with the
-6-
program. Tr. at 17. In February 2024, the Individual began seeing the OM Psychologist for
individual counseling every other week. Tr. at 19. The sessions focused on applying the lessons
the Individual learned in AA and SMART to her day-to-day life. Tr. at 21. The OM Psychologist
said that she was treating the Individual for Alcohol Dependence, Moderate, and at the time of the
hearing, the Individual was in sustained remission. Tr. at 31. She stated that she believed that the
Individual has a good prognosis because she has abstained from alcohol for approximately fourteen
months and has undergone alcohol treatment for the first time. Tr. at 32. The OM Psychologist
testified that she did not believe that the Individual needed an AA sponsor because the Individual
has “people in her life that she can do that with who truly understand everything that she’s trying
to balance in her life.” Tr. at 22.
The Therapist testified that she began seeing the Individual for therapy in November 2023. Tr. at
54. Initially, their sessions were weekly, and now the Individual sees the Therapist every other
week. Tr. at 54. The Therapist provides the Individual with grief counseling. Tr. at 55. The
Therapist opined that the Individual’s prognosis related to coping with her grief was excellent. Tr.
at 58–59. The Therapist does not specialize in treating individuals with substance abuse problems,
and she has not provided the Individual with any treatment related to her alcohol use. Tr. at 60,
62. She further clarified that the Individual’s treatment focuses on coping skills for grief, which
included finding healthier coping skills than consuming alcohol. Tr. at 62. Based on her
assessment of the Individual, the Therapist does not believe that the Individual has a dependence
on alcohol, but she opined that the Individual had needed to develop adequate tools to address
triggers and stressors. Tr. at 63.
The Individual’s former supervisor testified that he directly supervised her for about four years
from 2018 to 2022. Tr. at 42. He testified that he had in the past attended some after work social
events with the Individual where alcohol was present. Tr. at 43. He did not recall ever seeing the
Individual consume so much alcohol that she behaved inappropriately, but also admitted that he
had consumed alcohol with her on fewer than ten occasions and did not have significant knowledge
about her use of alcohol. Tr. at 43, 49. Finally, the former supervisor stated that he found the
Individual to be trustworthy and reliable in the workplace. Tr. at 45–46.
The Individual’s brother testified that he lives next door to the Individual and has contact with her
on a daily basis. Tr. at 67. He has not seen the Individual consume alcohol in more than a year
and a half or two years and stated that the Individual has always been reluctant to consume alcohol
around him because he does not consume alcohol. Tr. at 71–72. The brother testified that while
he has seen her consume a glass of wine at a restaurant, he has never seen her under the influence
of alcohol. Tr. at 72. He said that he did not see any alcohol in the Individual’s house the last time
he was there, but he does not recall her ever purchasing alcohol to consume at her home. Tr. at
73.
The Individual’s coworker testified that she has worked with the Individual for about seven years
and only sees her at work-related functions. Tr. at 77. She opined that the Individual is very
reliable and trustworthy at work. Tr. at 79.
The DOE Psychologist testified after observing the testimony of each of the other witnesses at the
hearing. She opined that the Individual had met the standard for reformation based on her
-7-
documented abstinence from alcohol consumption. Tr. at 148. She further opined that the
Individual had met the standard for rehabilitation by attending therapy, AA, and SMART. Tr. at
148–49. She explained that she had some minor reservations, because the Individual had
previously returned to problematic alcohol consumption after a fourteen-month period of sobriety.
Tr. at 149–150. However, those reservations have been offset by the treatment the Individual has
undergone. Tr. at 149–50. Prior to the treatment, she would have given the Individual a poor
prognosis related to her abstinence from alcohol, but now she would give the Individual a fair
prognosis with some reservations due to her history of relapsing after an extended period of
sobriety. Tr. at 150. The DOE Psychologist further explained that her fair prognosis means that
the Individual has shown progress, but there are still concerns because of her previous pattern of
behavior. Tr. at 153. She specifically noted that the only difference she has seen between this
current period of sobriety and the Individual’s previous period of sobriety was the treatment the
Individual underwent. Tr. at 153. The DOE Psychologist also expressed some concern about the
Individual’s openness to returning to alcohol consumption, but said she appreciated the
Individual’s honesty and thoughtfulness. Tr. at 154–55. She said she would be concerned about
the Individual returning to alcohol consumption because of her history of making poor decisions
while under the influence of alcohol. Tr. at 155.
V. Analysis
After meeting with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual began to attend AA and SMART
meetings, grief counseling, and alcohol counseling. She has complied with the treatment
recommendations made by two DOE-affiliated psychologists, the DOE Psychologist and the OM
Psychologist (who is employed by her employer’s EAP). Both psychologists have opined that the
Individual has adequately addressed her alcohol issues, although the DOE Psychologist expressed
several reservations about the Individual’s recovery. Moreover, the Individual has a fourteen-
month period of sobriety, which is documented through the submission of monthly negative PEth
test results. However, the Individual has not sufficiently resolved the security concerns raised by
her four alcohol-related arrests. While the Individual has nominally taken all the actions
recommended by the DOE and OM Psychologists, she still does not appear to have developed
sufficient insight into the role that alcohol has played in her life and the threat it poses to the
wellbeing of herself and others.4 On at least three occasions, the Individual has engaged in criminal
activity that could have resulted in death or injury to herself and others. There was a common
denominator on each of these occasions: the Individual’s use of alcohol. The Individual’s failure
to recognize the role that alcohol has played in her criminal activity is dangerous and her lack of
insight and accountability call her present judgment and reliability into question. The Individual’s
failure to self-acknowledge and fully address her alcohol problem, rather than just complying with
the LSO and her employer’s requirements, indicates her alcohol problem has not been resolved.
While the Individual attended counseling and self-help groups for her alcohol problem, those
interventions have not convinced her that she has an alcohol problem and needs to permanently
commit to sobriety to resolve DOE’s security concerns.
4 I note that while the Individual attended a number of online AA meetings, she did not obtain an AA sponsor, work
the AA’s Twelve-Step Program, or speak at AA meetings because she would not self-identify as an alcoholic.
Accordingly, I find her engagement in AA was minimal and was clearly motivated by her desire to have her clearance
reinstated rather than by her concern about the role alcohol had played in her life.
-8-
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four conditions that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a)–(d). One of these conditions is potentially present
in the instant case. However, because the Individual does not recognize that she has an alcohol
problem and is not committed to permanent sobriety, I find that the risk is too great that she would
return to using alcohol in excess to resolve the security concerns arising from her four alcohol-
related arrests, regardless of the existence of any mitigating factors.
Paragraph 23(c) provides that security concerns raised under Guideline G may be mitigated when
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.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 23(c). While the Individual has a history of relapsing after a one-and-a-half to two-
year period of sobriety, she had not received any significant alcohol treatment at that time. As
discussed above, the Individual has been attending SMART and AA, as well as participating in
counseling to address her alcohol disorder, and both DOE affiliated experts who testified at the
hearing agreed that she is making satisfactory progress in her treatment program. Moreover, she
has documented her recent abstinence from alcohol use with monthly PEth testing. Accordingly,
the mitigating condition set forth at ¶ 23(c) is potentially present in the instant case. However, I
do not agree that the Individual has shown that her progress is satisfactory. Even though the OM
Psychologist has diagnosed her with an alcohol disorder, Alcohol Dependence, the Individual does
not acknowledge that she has an alcohol problem and has refused to identify herself as an alcoholic
at the AA meetings she has attended. Moreover, she continues to contemplate returning to alcohol
use, even after her history of three DUI/DWI arrests and suspension of her DOE security clearance.
Given her history, it is likely that any return to alcohol use on her part would result in future illegal
or dangerous behavior. Since the Individual has continued to exhibit poor judgment concerning
alcohol, I find the risk that the Individual will return to alcohol to be too great to resolve the security
concerns raised under Guideline G.
I therefore find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns raised under Guideline
G.
VI. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security
concerns raised under Guideline G. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that
restoring her security clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would
be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, the Individual’s security clearance
should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth
at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven L. Fine
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals