PSH-24-0113

*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 30, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0113
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 10, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Janet R. H. Fishman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”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 with a DOE Contractor, in a position which requires that she hold a
security clearance. On September 15, 2023, the Individual was selected for a random Breath
Alcohol Test (BAT) at her place of employment, the results of which were positive for alcohol
consumption above her employer’s limit of 0.02 g/210L. Exhibit (Ex.) 9 at 48–49; Ex. 7 at 31. The
Individual reported to her employer that the night before the BAT, she consumed “a few drinks.”
Ex. 8 at 40.
In November 2023, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual, which sought additional information about her alcohol consumption. Ex. 10. In her
response to the LOI, the Individual reported that the day before the BAT, she consumed
approximately one to two beers while attending a softball game, and she later consumed
approximately “4 pitchers of beer amongst 7 friends,” during dinner. Id. at 56. She also reported
that before the BAT, she would typically consume “approx. 20-30 beers a week. That being, 1-2
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 -
at dinner each night, and then on weekends drinking more while watching some sort of sports
game throughout the entire day (approx. 14 hours).” Id. at 57. She also reported that before 2016,
she consumed approximately six to eight beers per night. Id. She also reported that in January
2013, she was charged with a misdemeanor liquor violation. Id. at 58. Finally, in an April 2021
QNSP, the Individual reported that in October 2010, while underage, she consumed alcohol with
friends, and consequently, had an altercation with a friend and had to serve community service at
her college. Ex. 13 at 164.
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s LOI responses, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist), which
occurred in December 2023. Ex. 11. The DOE Psychologist summarized his findings from the
evaluation in a report (Report). Id. As part of the evaluation, the Individual underwent alcohol
testing, in the form of a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)2 test, which was positive at a level of 283
ng/mL, which a medical doctor opined suggested the Individual engaged in “heavy drinking.” Id.
at 91-92. Based on his evaluation of the Individual and his review of the results of the Individual’s
alcohol testing, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria
in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision
(DSM-5-TR) for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation Id. at 73–74.
In March 2024, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex.
1 at 6–8. 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) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
In April 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 three witnesses: the Individual, the Individual’s
friend, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0113 (Tr.).
Counsel for the DOE submitted 14 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 14. The Individual
submitted five exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through E.
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
2 The DOE Psychologist’s Report indicates that PEth is “a molecule made only when ingested alcohol reaches the
surface of the red blood cell and reacts with a compound in the red blood cell membrane. Because nothing but ethyl
alcohol can make PEth in the red blood cell, the PEth test is 100% specific for alcohol consumption.” Ex. 11 at 71,
91. The Report also indicates that “a PEth level reflects the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous
28-30 days” and a “PEth result exceeding 20 ng/mL is evidence of ‘moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.’” Id.
- 3 -
doubt concerning her eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 5.
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), (d).
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual
met sufficient DSM-5-TR criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Severe, with no adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also cited that: 1) on September 15, 2023, the
Individual tested positive for alcohol consumption during a random BAT and Drug Screening at
work; 2) the Individual reported that from 2017 to her positive BAT, she would consume one to
two beers each night during the weekdays and more on the weekends totaling about twenty to
thirty beers per week; 3) she reported that from August 2010 to 2016, she would consume six to
eight beers per night; 4) in January 2013,3 police charged her with a misdemeanor, liquor violation,
after she consumed twelve to thirteen beers; and 5) in October 2010, she binge consumed alcohol
to the point of impairment and engaged in an altercation with another person. Id.
Considering the information cited by the LSO, I find the LSO properly invoked Guideline G.
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).
3 In the QNSP, the Individual reported that she believed this arrest occurred in approximately September 2013. Ex. 13
at 159–60.
- 4 -
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 LOI, the Individual reported that the night before her September 2023 BAT, she attended a
softball game and consumed approximately one to two beers. Ex. 10 at 56. She also reported that
after the softball game, she had dinner with a few friends, during which she shared approximately
“4 pitchers of beer amongst 7 friends.” Id. She reported that before her BAT, she typically
consumed approximately “20-30 beers a week . . . 1-2 at dinner each night, and then on weekends
[, she drank] more while watching some sort of sports game throughout the entire day.” Id at 57.
She reported that after the BAT, on September 15, 2023, she “reduced [her] alcohol consumption
to approx. 5 beers per week.” Id. at 56. She reported that in 2016, she reduced her alcohol
consumption to “1-2 beers per night,” and during the past five years, she typically consumed six
to eight beers per night. Id. She also reported that after being charged with a liquor violation in
January 2013, she was ordered to take a 1.5-hour class at a community college and to see a
substance abuse counselor, but she was never diagnosed with anything. Id. at 58. She also reported
that the last time she consumed alcohol was two weeks before she completed the LOI, on
November 4, 2023, during which she consumed four beers while watching football. Id. at 56.
In September 2023, after her positive BAT, the Individual was evaluated by a Licensed
Psychologist (LP) at her employer. Ex. 11 at 69. The Report indicates that during his consultation
with the LP regarding his evaluation of the Individual, the LP described the Individual as having
a “nonchalant attitude toward the positive [BAT] result” and found the Individual “did not
recognize that she was in trouble.” Id. . The LP opined that because the Individual reported to her
BAT “76 minutes after she was notified” of the test, he believed the Individual “may have
intentionally delayed her arrival to avoid the possibility of a positive [result].” Id.
In October 2023, the Individual was evaluated by a substance abuse counselor, at the request of
her employer. Ex. 6 at 26; Ex 11 at 69. After the evaluation, the counselor opined that the
Individual’s social circle was “alcohol laden.” Ex. 6 at 26. The counselor did not formally diagnose
the Individual but opined that “it was likely that she meets diagnostic criteria for [AUD],
Moderate,” and recommended that she enroll in an intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP).
Ex. 11 at 69.
On December 15, 2023, the Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist.. Ex. 11. The
Report indicates that during the Individual’s evaluation, she reported to the DOE Psychologist that
she started drinking alcohol at age 16. Id. at 67. The Report also indicates that when the Individual
feels “down” she drinks more and when she feels “up” she drinks less. Id. The DOE Psychologist
found the Individual’s history of alcohol consumption was consistent with what she reported in
her LOI and that her social environment was one in which “alcohol is consistently present and
consumed.” Id. at 67, 70. The Individual reported that after her positive BAT, she reduced her
alcohol intake to “approximately five to six beers per week,” and within the last 30 days, she
consumed “5, maybe 6” beers. Id. at 67–68. She also reported that her last use of alcohol was three,
30-ounce cocktails, on Saturday, December 9, 2023. Id. at 68.
- 5 -
Regarding her January 2013 arrest for a liquor violation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist
that before her arrest, she consumed “12 or 13 beers” with friends while standing outside of an
apartment building. Ex. 11 at 67. She said the police arrived in response to a noise complaint and
after noticing the Individual had “difficulty walking, determined that she was too inebriated to
walk home, and transported her to the police station where she was not arrested but did receive the
citation for [a liquor violation].” Id. After her arrest, the Individual received “deferred adjudication
and was required to take a 90-minute alcohol education class.” Id. The charges were dismissed
after she completed the class. Id. Regarding the October 2010 altercation, the Individual told the
DOE Psychologist that she was consuming alcohol with students, while in college, and got into an
argument with another student outside of her dormitory, and the argument escalated to a physical
altercation. Id.
As part of the psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist had the Individual undergo a PEth
test. Ex. 11 at 71. The results of the Individual’s PEth test were positive at a level of 283 ng/mL.
Id. at 71, 93. A medical doctor, who interpreted the Individual’s PEth test results, opined that “[the
Individual’s] positive PEth results indicate that she is consuming alcohol in a significantly greater
amount than she reported in her LOI response.” Id. at 72, 91–92. The DOE Psychologist opined
that despite the employment consequences from her positive BAT, the Individual “is continuing
to consume alcohol in a pattern consistent with binge drinking,” “[s]he presents as naïve and
nonchalant about her alcohol use and its consequences,” and “she drinks more than she is aware.”
Id. at 73. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 73–74. The DOE Psychologist recommended that,
to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the Individual enter and complete an
IOP, engage in “aftercare support for one year,” and demonstrate abstinence from alcohol for one
year, supported by monthly PEth testing.4 Id. at 74.
In her request for a hearing, the Individual indicated that she started an IOP on approximately April
2, 2024, and the expected completion date of the IOP was May 30, 2024. Ex. 2 at 10. The Individual
also indicated she was looking into an “[Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)] meeting to attend and help
with [her] rehabilitation and reform.” Id. As part of her hearing exhibits, the Individual submitted
a Certificate of Completion indicating she completed an IOP on May 30, 2024. Ex. D. The
Individual submitted documentation of six BATs between September 2023 to July 2024, the results
of which were all negative for alcohol consumption.5 Ex. C at 1–6. The Individual also submitted
the results of a July 2024 PEth test, which was negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. E. She
submitted documentation indicating she had scheduled follow-up visits with the LP in May 2024,
June 2024, and July 2024. Ex. B.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that between 2010 and 2016, she typically consumed six to
eight beers every night. Tr. at 20. She stated that after 2016, her alcohol consumption “slowed
down” due to medical issues, but she would still consume ten beers a night during weekend nights.
4 The DOE Psychologist also found the Individual met the diagnostic criteria for “Other Specified Depressive
Disorder” and “Unspecified Anxiety Disorder,” which he found she was successfully managing with medication. Ex.
11 at 72, 74.
5 The Individual underwent BATs on September 26, 2023, September 29, 2023, January 24, 2024, May 9, 2024, July
2, 2024, and July 30, 2024. Ex. C.
- 6 -
Id. at 21–23. She stated that after the September 2023 BAT, she started monthly sessions with the
LP, during which she discussed her alcohol consumption, but the LP never told her she needed to
stop drinking. Id. at 33, 53. She admitted that, at that time, she did not believe she needed alcohol
treatment. Id. at 49.
The Individual further testified that leading up to her December 2023 psychological evaluation she
was still drinking alcohol, consuming “maybe ten beers a week,” during weekends. Tr.at 30, 50–
51. She stated that when she wasn’t drinking beer, she would have three to four mimosas, once
every couple of weeks. Id. She stated she last consumed alcohol in February 2024. Id. at 34. She
explained that she decided to stop drinking in February 2024 because that is when someone
notified her, verbally, that her security clearance had been suspended, and she realized she needed
to stop drinking. Id. at 52–53.
The Individual further testified that the IOP helped her realized she had a problem with alcohol.
Tr. at 10. She explained that during the IOP, she learned alcohol played a big role in her life, she
used it as a form of celebration, and it became a habit. Id. at 11–12. She stated that now, if she
wants to celebrate something, she finds ways to celebrate that do not involve consuming alcohol.
Id. She stated that she realized that her alcohol consumption was not healthy and since she has
stopped drinking, her body is healthier, and she is in a “a better place” mentally and physically. Id.
at 12.
She stated that since June 2024, she has attended an aftercare program, consisting of group sessions
once or twice a week. Tr. at 56–57, 60–61. She stated that she stays engaged in the aftercare
program by talking about her situation and listening to other people talk about their experiences.
Id. at 58. She stated the aftercare program is teaching her how to maintain her sobriety and a
healthy lifestyle. Id. at 58–59. She is also learning that much of what triggers her to drink is related
to grief related to her medical issues, and she is learning how to counteract that without using
alcohol. Id. at 64. She also realized that she was naïve about her alcohol consumption, which could
have affected her reporting of her alcohol consumption to the DOE Psychologist during her
evaluation. Id. at 60. She stated she has also attended a couple of AA meetings, but found AA was
not a good fit for her because of AA’s “religious setting.” Id. at 61. She stated she also tried a
program called SMART recovery,6 which uses a mobile app and “chat room style things” that she
will use if she needs someone to talk to outside of her usual support group. Id. She also continues
to meet with the LP monthly. Id. at 62.
6 SMART stands for Self-Management and Recovery Training. According to its website,
SMART [program] is an evidenced-based recovery method grounded in Rational Emotive
Behavioral Therapy (REBT) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), that supports people with
substance dependencies or problem behaviors to:
1. Build and maintain motivation
2. Cope with urges and cravings
3. Manage thoughts, feelings and behaviors
4. Lead a balanced life
What is SMART Recovery?, SMART Recovery, https://smartrecovery.org/what-is-smart-recovery (last visited Jun.
20, 2024).
- 7 -
The Individual further testified that she keeps nonalcoholic beers at home, which she uses to “trick
[her] mind” if she is in a situation where people are drinking around her. Tr. at 66. She provided
an example of one instance where she was in an environment where people were drinking around
her and “rather than try to explain to everybody that [she] was sober … sometimes it’s just easier
to have … the nonalcoholic beer.” Id. at 66–67. She also stated she avoids spending time with
friends who drink heavily. Id. at 68. She stated that she intends to continue the aftercare program
for the foreseeable future. Id. at 70, 73, 76. She also stated she uses her mother and friends as a
support system, and she has the tools and resources to maintain her sobriety. Id. at 76.
The Individual’s friend testified that she has known the Individual for four years and talks to her
almost every day. Tr. at 36. She stated that she and the Individual typically see each other once per
week, during which they hang out at home and watch movies. Id. at 36–37. She explained that
when the two of them would drink together, the Individual would consume approximately six or
seven beers, but the Individual would typically consume more if they were watching a sporting
event. Id. at 37–38, 40–41. She stated the last time she observed the Individual consume alcohol
was “before the summer started” but, she could not recall the exact month. Id. at 40–41. She stated
that, over the summer, she has not observed any alcohol in the Individual’s home, and since the
Individual stopped drinking, she does not go out to eat with her friends as often and she appears to
be a happier person. Id. at 43–46.
The DOE Psychologist testified as to the reasons he diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe,
and the treatment recommendations that were noted in the Report. Tr. at 88–91. As to the
Individual’s rehabilitation from her AUD, he stated that although the Individual was being more
honest about her alcohol use at the hearing than she was during her psychological evaluation, she
was still in the process of rehabilitation from her AUD. Id. at 90–91. The DOE Psychologist added
that the type of treatment the Individual has received so far has been adequate, but she has only
been in such treatment for five months, and he would like to see her in treatment for a longer period
of time. Id. at 91, 93. He also stated the Individual did not present “a consistent identification of
abstinence through laboratory testing.” Id. He stated that that random BATs “don’t really give you
much indication of alcohol use beyond the 24 to 48 hours prior to testing.” Id. at 91. The DOE
Psychologist also opined that the results of the Individual’s July 2024 PEth test covered only a
fraction of the recommended period of abstinence. Id. Finally, he said that he likes the fact that the
Individual recognizes the benefit of individual therapy to address her reasons for drinking and he
recommended that she continue to attend aftercare. Id. at 92.
As to the Individual’s reformation efforts, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s
environment concerns him. Tr.at 93. He stated that the Individual’s primary social circle is still
drinking alcohol, and she still participates in activities where the people around her are drinking
alcohol. Id. He also stated the Individual’s use of non-alcoholic beer “worries” him because it
indicates she has a desire to drink alcohol and is going to “engage the taste, which is the beginning
of a trigger.” Id. He stated he appreciates the Individual not wanting to “make a big deal” out of
the fact that she is not drinking, but she is creating the appearance of drinking, which is “just one
step closer to, ‘Well, what’s one?’” Id. at 94. He opined that, because of the Individual’s
insufficient time in treatment and her “lack of consistency in proving abstinence,” she has not
shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from her AUD, Severe. Id. at 97.
- 8 -
V. Analysis
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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
Regarding factor (a), the Individual’s reported consumption of one to two beers a night during
weekdays and more on weekends, between 2017 and 2023, and six to eight beers a night between
2010 and 2016, demonstrates that her alcohol consumption was frequent. Although the
Individual’s October 2010 altercation and January 2013 misdemeanor liquor violation occurred
over ten years ago, both incidents involved the heavy consumption of alcohol while socializing
with others, which is not an unusual circumstance for the Individual. Finally, the Individual’s
positive BAT and subsequent AUD diagnosis occurred just over eight months ago, and at the time
of the hearing, her claimed sobriety was only six months.7 Neither of these periods, eight months
or six months, is a sufficient period of time to demonstrate that her AUD has been resolved and
her alcohol misuse is unlikely to recur, especially given that the DOE Psychologist testified that
she is not rehabilitated or reformed and that the provided tests do not demonstrate that she was
abstinent with any degree of certainty. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the
security concerns under factor (a).
Regarding factor (b), the Individual testified that she did not realize she had an issue with alcohol
until February 2024, when she learned her access authorization was suspended. Although the
Individual successfully completed an IOP, she had only been engaged in an aftercare program for
two months at the time of the hearing, which is less than the period recommended by the DOE
7 She testified that she ceased consuming alcohol in February 2024. Tr. at 34.
- 9 -
Psychologist to resolve her AUD, Severe. Further, the DOE Psychologist opined that the
Individual’s submission of six negative BATs and one negative PEth test is insufficient to show
she has abstained from alcohol for the duration since she claims to have ceased alcohol
consumption, let alone the 12 months necessary to resolve her AUD, Severe. Therefore, I find that
the Individual has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol and
has not mitigated the security concerns under factor (b).
Regarding factor (c), the Individual submitted documentary evidence that she completed an IOP
but she had only completed two months of an aftercare program as of the hearing date and claims
to have abstained from alcohol for six months, less than the 12 months recommended by the DOE
Psychologist to resolve her AUD, Severe. In addition, the Individual testified that she relies upon
non-alcoholic beers to trick her mind into thinking she is consuming alcohol and to maintain her
abstinence in the presence of others who are consuming alcohol. The DOE Psychologist expressed
concern about the Individual’s use of non-alcoholic beer because it is the beginning of a trigger
and also hiding her desire to consume alcohol. He also opined that the Individual has not completed
enough treatment to be rehabilitated and reformed from her AUD, Severe. With these facts, I
cannot conclude the Individual has made satisfactory progress in her alcohol treatment, and she
has not mitigated the security concerns under factor (c).
Regarding factor (d), as explained above, the Individual successfully completed an IOP, but she
had only participated in aftercare for two months as of the hearing and had not yet completed the
program. In addition, the Individual has not provided objective evidence she has abstained from
alcohol consumption in accordance with the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations.
Therefore, 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
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, 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 Guideline G.
Accordingly, I find the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring her 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