PSH-24-0131

*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: May 30, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0131
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 14, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Janet R. H. Fishman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material 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.
(June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access authorization
should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position for which he holds a security
clearance. In late November 2023, the Individual voluntarily entered an inpatient residential
alcohol treatment program (Inpatient Program) and requested treatment for “alcohol abuse issues.”
Exhibit (Ex.) 12 at 92, 94.2 The Inpatient Program’s Pre-Admission Screening indicates that the
Individual was consuming alcohol to cope with depression and anxiety, and after fighting with his
fiancé, his family recommended that he seek treatment for his alcohol use. Id. at 104, 111. The
Individual told the Inpatient Program that he was “drinking and driving a lot” and “would have
ended up in a car accident,” that he was missing work because of his drinking, and that he
continued to consume alcohol even though he knew he had “physical or psychological problem[s]
that may be made worse” by consumption of alcohol. Id. at 93, 109–110. He also told the Inpatient
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by the DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This decision will
refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the DOE.
2
Program that in 2010, he was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI).3 Id. at
111. The Inpatient Program’s Medical Director diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use
Disorder (AUD), Severe. Id. at 89. The Individual’s employer subsequently reported the
Individual’s receipt of alcohol treatment to the Local Security Office (LSO). Ex. 6; Ex. 7; Ex. 8;
Ex. 9; Ex. 10.
In January 2024, the LSO issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual requesting
additional details about his alcohol consumption and alcohol treatment. Ex. 11. In the LOI, the
Individual reported that before seeking treatment, he was consuming “4-6 beers/shots” two to three
days out of his four days off from work, he would drink to intoxication “2-3 days out of [his] 4
days off from work,” and that this level of consumption was “creating a pattern and habit” that he
wanted to change before it started negatively impacting important aspects of his life. Id. at 45, 49.
He also reported that his use of alcohol “did not initially have a negative impact on [his] job or
[his] ability to work,” did not “negatively impact[ his] judgement or reliability,” and did not
negatively impact his physical or emotional health. Id. at 49–50. Finally, the Individual reported
that the Inpatient Program did not provide him with a diagnosis. Id. at 46.
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s LOI responses, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor Psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who
conducted a two-and-a-half-hour clinical interview of the Individual in February 2024 and issued
a report (the Report) of his findings. Ex. 12. Based on his evaluation of the Individual, 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 62–64.
In April 2024, 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.
1 at 7–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5–6.
In May 2024, the Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded the
Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. E; Ex. 2. 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 five witnesses: the Individual, the
Individual’s wife, the Individual’s mother, the Individual’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
Counselor, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0131
(Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted 14 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 14. The Individual
submitted eight exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through H.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
3 The results of the Individual’s background investigation indicate that after his arrest, the Individual was administered
a breathalyzer test, the result of which showed the Individual’s blood alcohol content (BAC) was “.09 or .10.” Ex. 14
at 277.
3
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 E (Personal Conduct) and
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 5–6.
A. Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, 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. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying security concern are the “[d]eliberate omission, concealment, or falsification
of relevant facts from any personnel security questionnaire . . . or similar form used to conduct
investigations, . . . determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness, or award fiduciary
responsibilities[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(a). Under Guideline E, the LSO alleged that:
1) In his January 2024 LOI response, the Individual denied any negative impact his alcohol
consumption may have had on his emotional or physical health, but medical records from
the Inpatient Program indicate that the Individual admitted to continued alcohol
consumption despite knowing that “he had a physical or psychological problem [that was]
made worse by use of substances.” Ex. 1 at 5;
2) In his January 2024 LOI response, the Individual denied any negative impact his alcohol
consumption may have had on “his ability to work” or his job. Id. However, the medical
records from the Inpatient Program indicate that the Individual stated that his alcohol
consumption caused him to miss work and “interfered with his management of work.” Id.;
3) The Individual indicated in his January 2024 LOI response that he did not receive a
diagnosis following the counseling/treatment he received while in the Inpatient Program.
Id. However, medical records from the Inpatient Program indicate that a medical
professional at the recovery center diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe. Id.; and
4) The Individual stated in his January 2024 LOI response that “he did not believe that his
judgement or reliability was negatively impacted by his alcohol use.” Id. However, medical
records from the Inpatient Program indicate that the Individual “acknowledge[d] driving
while intoxicated on multiple occasions and acknowledged [that] he could have ended up
in a car accident due to drinking and driving a lot.” Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline E is justified.
B. Guideline G
Under Guideline G, “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
4
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security
concern under Guideline G include: “alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving
while under the influence[,]” the “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment[,]” 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(a), (c), and (d). Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged the following
information regarding the Individual’s alcohol-related diagnoses:
1) On February 20, 2024, the DOE Psychologist evaluated the Individual and “concluded that
the Individual meets the DSM-5-TR criteria for AUD, Severe.” Ex. 1 at 6. The Individual
“has a history of consuming alcohol to intoxication at least once a month and he is a
habitual consumer of alcohol. There is not adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation.” Id.; and
2) Medical records from the Inpatient Program reflect that the Program’s Medical Director
diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe. Id.
The LSO also alleged the following information regarding the Individual’s alcohol consumption:
1) From July 2023 to November 28, 2023, the Individual worked four days-on, followed by
four days-off. Id. As indicated in the DOE Psychologist’s report, the Individual initially
consumed three to four beers and “one to two shots of vodka in a sitting, for approximately
four consecutive days while he was scheduled off work.” Id. Over time, this rate of
consumption increased to “approximately one six pack of [beer] and more than two shots
of vodka, on the days he was off work.” Id.; and
2) From July 2023 to November 28, 2023, the Individual worked four days-on, followed by
four days-off, and he admitted to consuming alcohol to the point of intoxication “two to
three days out of the four days he was off from work.” Id.
The LSO also cited the Individual’s September 17, 2010, charge for DWI, and that his blood
alcohol content was “.09/.10.” Id. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
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
5
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 so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
During an enhanced subject interview in May 2022, the Individual was asked, by the investigator,
about the circumstances of his September 2010 DWI. According to the report of the investigation,
the Individual stated that he consumed two alcoholic drinks while at a concert, and while driving
home, he was pulled over by a police officer for failing to completely stop at a stop sign. Ex. 14 at
277; Tr. at 78. At some point after his arrest, the Individual was given a breathalyzer test, which
returned a “.09 or .10 blood alcohol content.” Ex. 14 at 277. The Individual was arrested and
charged with DWI. Id. at 189.
Upon admission to the Inpatient Program in November 2023, the Individual told the Inpatient
Program that he was consuming “about a pint a day of hard alcohol.” Ex. 12 at 92. The record of
the pre-admission screening for the Inpatient Program states that the Individual reported
experiencing “withdrawal symptoms[,] including but not limited to[,] body aches, tremors, sweats,
increased anxiety . . . depression” and “poor sleep” after he stops drinking alcohol. Ex. 12 at 111.
At 11:18 p.m. on November 28, 2023, the Individual underwent testing and his blood alcohol level
was positive for alcohol consumption at a level of “0.09.” Id. at 88. During his treatment, the
Individual received a variety of services, including a “12-Step Support Group,” individual and
group counseling, a psychiatric evaluation, and family counseling. Id. at 93. The Individual also
completed a “detox episode of care . . . using medications and monitoring.” Id. at 94. The Inpatient
Program’s Discharge Summary indicates that during treatment, the Individual consistently
attended his group and individual counseling sessions, he “was able to work on himself” and his
issues with anxiety and depression, and he showed “consistent use of coping skills.” Id. at 92. At
the conclusion of treatment, the Individual was found to have “the aptitude” and skills he needs to
maintain his sobriety. Id.
On December 22, 2023, the Individual was discharged from the Inpatient Program after twenty-
four days of treatment and received a Certificate of Completion. Ex. A at 2; Ex. 12 at 92. As part
of his “aftercare plan,” the Individual was given an appointment to see his primary care physician
and a therapist, he was provided a “list of meetings” to attend near his home with instructions to
attend “[five] meetings a week,” and he received a recommendation to attend a weekly alumni
support group. Ex. 12 at 92, 94, 101. The Inpatient Program suggested that the Individual attend
an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), but the Individual told the Inpatient Program he could not
enroll in an IOP because he was “working two jobs.” Id. at 94, 100; Tr. at 81. The Individual asked
the Inpatient Program to give him a referral to an IOP, in case his circumstances changed. Tr. at
100. The Individual’s Relapse Prevention Plan included recommendations for engaging in healthy
activities, such as meditation, and using coping skills to maintain his sobriety. Ex. 12 at 102.
On January 9, 2024, after the Individual returned to work, he met with the Lead Psychologist at
his employer’s EAP and was placed in his employer’s Fitness for Duty (FFD) program. Ex. B at
1; Ex G. As part of the FFD program, the Individual was required to abstain from alcohol and
6
participate in monthly PEth testing. Ex. B at 1; Ex. G. The Individual also participated in individual
therapy, weekly abstinence support group meetings, an alcohol education class, and Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings once every two weeks. Ex. B at 1; Ex. G.
On January 16, 2024, the Individual began meeting with a Clinical Psychologist, through his
employer’s EAP. Ex. 12 at 60; Ex. B at 3. A September 9, 2024, letter from the Clinical
Psychologist indicates the Individual’s treatment consisted of weekly psychotherapy sessions,
during which he was able to “explore issues in-depth with honesty” and his family’s history related
to alcohol use. Ex. B at 3. The letter also indicates that the Clinical Psychologist found the
Individual’s voluntary admission into alcohol treatment, which she had not seen before in her
practice, “contributed to his lack of psychological awareness regarding the process and protocols
of inpatient treatment” and that “[o]ne of the issues that [they] dealt with was his lack of awareness
that he had a diagnosis when he was discharged” from the Inpatient Program. Id. at 4. The Clinical
Psychologist provided the Individual with a “working diagnosis” of AUD, Severe, in Sustained
Remission, and opined that his prognosis is positive. Id.
During his February 2024 psychological evaluation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that
his alcohol consumption increased once his third child was born, in July 2023. Ex. 12 at 58. He
explained that during his days off from work, he would purchase a six-pack of beer and a bottle of
vodka, and he would then consume “three to four beers and one to two shots of vodka in a sitting.”
Id. Over time, his alcohol consumption increased, and he would consume an entire six-pack of
beer, along with more vodka. Id. He stated he realized his alcohol use was a problem when, the
day before the 2023 Thanksgiving holiday, he woke up with a hangover but continued to drink. Id.
He then told his wife4 he needed to “do something,” and she helped him find the Inpatient Program
to seek treatment. Id. The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he last drank to intoxication
on November 27, 2023, at which time he consumed “4/6 beers/shots over a two-to-three-hour
period.” Id. at 58. However, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual also drank to
intoxication again the following day, on November 28, 2023, based on the result of the alcohol
test the Individual was administered upon his arrival at the Inpatient Program. Id. at 59. The
Individual also denied that the Inpatient Program diagnosed him with an AUD. Id.
As part of the evaluation, the Individual underwent alcohol testing, in the form of a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)5 test, the result of which was negative for alcohol consumption, which
the DOE Psychologist opined was consistent with his reporting that he had not consumed “a
measurable amount of alcohol in the last 28 days.” Id. at 61–62, 81–82. However, the Report
indicates that during his clinical interview, the Individual acknowledged that he had failed to
“fulfill major role obligations” due to his alcohol use, that he had continued to consume alcohol
despite the “persistent” problems it has caused to his personal, physical and psychological
4 At the time the Report was drafted, the Individual’s wife was still his girlfriend and is accordingly referred to as his
girlfriend in the Report.
5 The 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.” Ex. 12 at 61. It also indicates that “[b]ecause nothing
but ethyl alcohol can make PEth in the red blood cell, the PEth test is 100% specific for alcohol consumption[.]” Id.
Further, “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.
7
wellbeing, and that he had experienced withdrawal symptoms since he stopped consuming alcohol
on November 28, 2023. Id. at 58, 62.
After interviewing the Individual, the DOE Psychologist consulted with some of the Individual’s
treatment providers about the progress of his treatment. Ex. 12 at 59–60. The Lead Psychologist
reported that the Individual was “proactive and committed to self-improvement” during his
treatment. Id. at 60. The Clinical Psychologist reported that she meets with the Individual weekly,
and their therapy “focuses on family issues such as his maternal grandfather’s age and illness.” Id.
The Marriage and Family Therapist that the Individual saw at the Inpatient Program told the DOE
Psychologist that the Individual was “actively engaged” in treatment and “continues to make
positive alumni check-ins” with the Inpatient Program. Id. The Family Therapist also reported that
his prognosis for the Individual was positive. Id. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual
with AUD, Severe. Id. at 64. He found the Individual “attempted rehabilitation” by completing the
Inpatient Program, but he found the Individual’s engagement with aftercare to be “minimal,”
“unconfirmed,” and “at a frequency less than what he agreed to in his discharge and relapse
prevention plan with [the Inpatient Program].” Id. To show rehabilitation from his AUD, the DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual enroll in an IOP, consistently engage in aftercare
support for 12 months, and submit to monthly PEth testing. Id. To show reformation from his
AUD, the DOE Psychologist recommended the Individual remain abstinent from alcohol for 12
months, supported by monthly PEth testing. Id.
From May 2, 2024, through June 6, 2024, the Individual attended a six-week Alcohol Awareness
Class, which was provided through his employer’s EAP, and the Individual received a Certificate
of Completion at the end of the class. Ex. A at 1; Ex. B at 2; Tr. at 13–14. On July 25, 2024, the
Individual began a 12-week alcohol “support group” called “Maintaining Changes,” and had
attended five meetings through September 2024.6 Ex. B at 2; Tr. at 13–14, 19. A letter provided
by the EAP Counselor indicates that during his classes, the Individual participated by “interacting,
sharing, giving feedback about topics, and [expressing] how it relates to him.” Id. The Individual
also submitted six letters of recommendation, from four supervisors and two colleagues. Ex. B at
5–11. The letters contained positive descriptions of the Individual’s progression through the FFD
program, his character, and the quality of his work with his employer. Id. The Individual also
submitted documentation showing he underwent monthly PEth testing, from January 2024 through
September 2024, the results of which were all negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. C; Ex. G.
A letter from the Lead Psychologist indicates that as of September 2024, the Individual has been
compliant with all FFD requirements, including unannounced breath testing,” and all of the
Individual’s alcohol testing had been negative. Ex. G. She noted that the Individual has been
“engaged in the recommended course of individual therapy and abstinence support groups[,]”as
well as AA and the . . . EAP Alcohol Education class.” Id. The Lead Psychologist also indicated
that she discussed IOP enrollment with the Individual, as recommended by the DOE Psychologist.
Id. However, she opined that after discussing the matter, she determined that because the
Individual was “demonstrating success” with his current treatment program, it was “likely [that
he] would not have qualified for the higher level of care.” Id. The Lead Psychologist also indicated
that the Individual’s present level of care was “one that is more easily sustainable long term, and
likely to provide ongoing support.” Id.
6 The EAP Counselor testified that all participants must remain abstinent from alcohol, and that abstinence is the only
requirement of the group. Tr. at 19. However, the EAP “does not provide any kind of [alcohol] testing.” Id.
8
At the hearing, the EAP Counselor testified that the Individual was “present, alert, interactive” and
exhibited “very good participation” at the group meetings. Tr. at 16. She confirmed that to her
knowledge, the Individual “is not drinking” and “does not want to go back to drinking.” Id. at 17,
27. She stated that the Individual has also experienced “positive life changes,” and that he found
the Inpatient Program to be “extremely eye-opening[.]” Id. She noted that because he is attending
things like AA meetings, the Individual “seems engaged in his recovery.” Id. at 18. She stated that
the Individual told her that he sought treatment because the amount he was drinking had started to
cause him concern, resulting in a promise to himself that he would stop consuming alcohol. Id. at
24–25.
The Individual’s wife testified that at the time the Individual decided to seek treatment, she had
some concerns with the amount of alcohol the Individual was consuming, and that she had told
him as much. Id. at 32. She described feeling frustrated with the Individual at the time but denied
any fight that ultimately resulted in the Individual seeking treatment. Id. at 34. She explained that
although the Individual had voiced some concerns regarding the possible impact that seeking
treatment would have on his employment, she told him that she “was going to stand by his side[.]”
Id. at 33. She did not want the Individual’s alcohol consumption to “get any worse than what it
was[.]” Id. at 34–35. The Individual’s wife has since seen “major improvements” in “all aspects
of [the Individual’s] life[,]” further stating that he is committed to his job and is adored by his
children. Id. at 36. She also explained that he takes his treatment “very seriously” and that he is
“very proactive[.]” Id. at 37. She indicated that instead of drinking, the Individual now spends his
time working on the house and yard, spending time with his children, exercising, and attending
church and church-related activities. Id. Further, not only do his friends respect the Individual’s
decision to remain abstinent from alcohol, but the Individual has not endorsed any cravings or
desire to consume alcohol to his wife. Id. at 38–39. She also testified that they do not keep alcohol
in the home, and that to her knowledge, the Individual last consumed alcohol while on the way to
the Inpatient Program. Id. at 40.
The Individual’s mother, who lives “down [the] road” from the Individual, testified that because
she is a recovering alcoholic herself, she found any consumption of alcohol by her son to be
problematic. Id. at 46–47. She was upset by the Individual’s previous DWI, and since seeking
treatment, she has seen “a complete 100 percent turnaround[]” in the Individual. Id. at 48. Now,
he is “dependable[,]” “looks healthy[,]” and is “committed to himself and to his family.” Id.
Previously, the Individual “had no motivation.” Id. at 48–49. Although there was alcohol at the
Individual’s wedding in August 2024, she kept her “eyes . . . on [the Individual,]” to make sure
“nobody was offering him” a drink, and noted that the Individual was “having a really good sober
time[.]” Id. at 30, 49. She indicated that the Individual has told her that he intends to remain sober,
and that “this is the life that he wants now[.]” Id. at 50. She recounted the fact that the Individual
called her to ask about the rehabilitation process, as she had undergone such a process previously.
Id. at 52–53. The Individual’s mother told him that she “was going to support him 100 percent.”
Id. at 53. She denied conducting an intervention. Id. She also indicated that the Individual has not
endorsed any craving for alcohol to her. Id. at 54.
The Individual testified that he decided to enter treatment when he “saw that [he] was going down
the wrong road[,]” in that he “was drinking more than [he] would have liked.” Id. at 62. Alcohol
consumption was no longer a social activity for him, and it became an unhealthy “habit.” Id. He
testified that he does not remember indicating to anyone that he engaged in an argument with his
9
now wife, precipitating his desire to seek treatment. Id. at 63. He denied any intentional dishonestly
in completing the LOI and suggested that there may have been a miscommunication. Id. Rather,
his desire to be present for his family and to keep his job are what motivated him to undergo
treatment. Id. at 63–64. He understood that he had an issue with alcohol and acknowledged that he
drank a significant amount of alcohol while on his way to the Inpatient Program. Id. at 64–65.
However, he testified that since abstaining from alcohol, he has not “experienced a trigger[,]”
despite being in situations where others are consuming alcohol around him. Id. at 73. The last time
he consumed alcohol was when he was on his way to the Inpatient Program. Id. at 74. The
Individual admitted that he previously attempted to stop drinking alcohol prior to attending the
Inpatient Program. Id. at 74. On that occasion, he wanted to “get healthy [and] get in the gym just
to look good.” Id. at 74. He testified that he could not pinpoint a reason that he began drinking
again, but recently his alcohol use was to cope with stress. Id. at 74–75. He feels that he will remain
sober this time, because “treatment . . . opened [his] eyes on how bad it can actually get, and [he
does not] want to experience that.” Id. at 75. As he wants to be a good example for his children,
he has no intention of drinking alcohol again. Id. at 75–76. Although the Individual admitted that
he lost some friends following his commitment to sobriety, he “noticed . . . [that he] can have just
as much fun” without consuming alcohol. Id. at 77.
He indicated that he introduces himself as an alcoholic at AA meetings, which he attends every
other week, and that he is currently “going back between [steps nine and eleven] of the Twelve
Steps. Tr. at 66–67, 93. With regard to his AA meeting attendance, the Individual attends a
“24-hour” online meeting. Id. at 70. Through these meetings, he has been able to enjoy the
comradery of fellow attendees, and he has learned from their “rock bottom” stories. Id. at 70–71.
He particularly enjoys attending the EAP Maintaining Changes meeting, as the attendees are “all
pretty much in the same boat[.]” Id. at 71–72. He also counts his wife, mother, children, a good
friend, and fellow AA attendees among those in his support system. Id. at 74. Although he attended
an Inpatient Program, the Individual acknowledged that he had not attended an IOP, as
recommended by the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 69. He testified that he spoke to the EAP Lead
Psychologist, and she indicated that “she believes that [he would not] qualify for” an IOP.7 Id. at
68. The Individual testified that he had completed ten months of “aftercare” and submitted to nine
PEth tests. Id. at 69–70.
Regarding his LOI responses, the Individual asserted that he clearly stated his work was impacted
by his alcohol consumption because he “had to step away [from work] to attend [the Inpatient
Program],” which did not allow him to perform his regular job duties. Ex. E at 1. He further
asserted that upon being discharged from the Inpatient Program, he received a Discharge Plan,
which did not indicate he was diagnosed with an AUD, so he did not consider himself as having
been diagnosed.8 Ex. E at 2; Ex. F. He learned he was diagnosed at the Inpatient Program after
reading the DOE Psychologist’s Report. Ex. E at 2.
The DOE Psychologist testified that he could not conclude that the Individual had shown adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Tr. at 85. Specifically, the Individual failed to complete
7 At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that with regard to this testimony, he could not “respond to [it,]” and
he believes that “the only way to know is if [the Individual] seek[s] admission and they say no.” Tr. at 94.
8 The Discharge paperwork also indicates that the Individual currently uses “[m]editation, [m]indfulness, [j]ournaling,
[twelve] step meetings” as “coping skills.” Ex. F at 3.
10
an IOP, and the online AA meetings do not constitute “what [the DOE Psychologist] would
consider consistent aftercare support.” Id. Further, the most important areas of concern that the
DOE Psychologist wanted the Individual to address at the time of the psychological evaluation
were “discontinuing risky behaviors” by engaging in sobriety, “managing his cravings,” and
“successfully reengaging in family . . . and work.” Id. at 85–86. The DOE Psychologist also noted
that he was somewhat confused by the fact that the Individual stated that he had not had a drink
after November 27, 2023,9 but his BAC registered at .09 “right before midnight on November
28th.” Id. at 87. This discrepancy caused the DOE Psychologist some “concern about [the
Individual’s] truthfulness.” Id. Also, the DOE Psychologist speculated that the reason for at least
one of the discrepancies between what was stated in the Inpatient Program records and what the
Individual answered on the LOI could have been that “he was inebriated at the time of intake[,]
and he may have exaggerated the circumstances that led to his seeking inpatient [treatment].” Tr.
at 91. When asked what he wanted to see the Individual do to show adequate evidence of
reformation or rehabilitation at the time of the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that he
wanted to see the Individual attend “[a] consistent aftercare program once a week with [a]
professional . . . who consider[s] what they do to be treatment” or “enroll in an IOP.” Id. at 93–94.
The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual’s diagnosis at the time of the hearing was
AUD, Severe, in early remission. Id. at 95.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified 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
9 This testimony contradicted what the DOE Psychologist stated in his Report, which was that the Individual reported
he last drank to intoxication on November 27, 2023, but acknowledged his sobriety date was November 28, 2023. Ex.
12 at 58.
11
(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.
Based upon the evidence before me, I find the Individual has mitigated the stated Guideline G
concerns. The Individual submitted evidence he successfully completed an Inpatient Program,
during which he received individual and group counseling, family counseling, and monitoring to
treat his AUD, Severe, and address the anxiety and depression that contributed to his alcohol
consumption. After the Inpatient Program, the Individual completed a six-week alcohol education
class, and as of the date of the hearing, the Individual submitted evidence that he attends AA
meetings once every two weeks, attends individual psychotherapy counseling sessions once a
week, and has completed five sessions of a 12-week alcohol-support group. The Individual also
submitted nine negative PEth tests to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence
from alcohol, the full length of which has been approximately ten months.
Furthermore, the Lead Psychologist opined in her letter that because the Individual was
demonstrating success with the alcohol treatment and support summarized above, it is likely he
would not have qualified for a higher level of care provided by an IOP. Although the DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual enroll in an IOP, or receive more consistent
aftercare, to fully resolve his AUD, I find the opinion of the Lead Psychologist, who has monitored
the Individual’s compliance with the FFD program and additional treatment received via his
employer’s EAP for the past eight months, and with whom the Individual met more recently, to be
more persuasive evidence of the Individual’s progress. Additionally, the EAP Counselor, who
leads the EAP programs, which the Individual has been attending regularly, provided evidence
indicating that the Individual is committed to abstinence, as he has testified, and that he is an active
participant in his recovery. The Clinical Psychologist, with whom the Individual also meets
weekly, opined in her letter that she diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, in Sustained
Remission, that his prognosis is positive, and that he will continue to make good progress. The
opinions of the Lead Psychologist, Clinical Psychologist, and EAP Counselor convince me that
the Individual’s prognosis is good.
Finally, I believe the Individual has very strong reasons and motivations for remaining abstinent;
primarily, his family and the relationship he has with his children. Most compelling to me is that
his mother has been a recovering alcoholic for 30 years. Their relationship is close, and she cares
about him deeply. She testified that she watched him closely during his wedding to confirm that
he did not consume alcohol, which he did not, even though it was readily available. The Individual
has a solid and wide base of support offered to him by his wife, mother, and fellow AA attendees.
Moreover, the Individual has remained abstinent for ten months and the testimony and evidence
offered by his providers indicate that the Individual has voiced his intention to remain sober and
is committed to his ongoing sobriety. Therefore, I conclude that the Individual has provided
sufficient evidence of actions taken to overcome his AUD and a clear and established pattern of
abstinence sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 23(b).
B. Guideline E
12
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(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;
(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.
Having mitigated the alcohol concerns under Guideline G, I conclude that the concerns raised by
his dishonesty in his LOI responses have also been mitigated. The Individual’s Guideline E
concerns are related to the concerns regarding his alcohol use. Considering the testimony that was
provided at the hearing, I find the Individual and his witnesses to be very credible as to the
Individual’s alcohol consumption, his reasons for entering the Inpatient Program, and his
additional efforts to overcome his AUD. I also find that since completing the LOI, the Individual
has demonstrated genuine honesty about his struggles with alcohol, as evidenced by the fact that
he recognized his maladaptive alcohol use and voluntarily sought treatment, the fact that it made
him unmotivated, and that it resulted in prior involvement with the criminal justice system. At the
hearing, the Individual credibly testified to the negative effects alcohol has had on his life, and the
realization that he had to take urgent action to address his maladaptive alcohol use. As explained
above, the Individual has taken actions to overcome his AUD, including successfully completing
an Inpatient Program, engaging in weekly counseling sessions with the EAP Counselor and
13
Clinical Psychologist, and successfully abstaining from alcohol for approximately ten months. The
Individual also received counseling focused on his issues with anxiety and depression, which were
factors that contributed to his AUD.
Finally, the Individual testified, and submitted documentary evidence to support, that in
completing the LOI, he was not aware the Inpatient Program diagnosed him with an AUD because
his Discharge Plan, an obvious and logical place to locate information pertaining to a diagnosis,
was bereft of any such information. The Individual’s testimony was also supported by the Clinical
Psychologist’s letter, which indicated the Individual’s lack of awareness of his diagnosis could
have occurred because he entered the Inpatient Program voluntarily. As such, I find that the related
Guideline E concerns have been mitigated and are unlikely to recur in the future. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 17(d).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E and 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 brought forth sufficient evidence
to resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that
restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would
be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Janet R. H. Fishman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals