PSH-24-0135

*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: June 4, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0135
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: November 21, 2024
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Brenda B. Balzon, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 In May 2023, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP), in which he disclosed that he was seeing a psychologist for
treatment related to several issues, including alcohol abuse. Ex. 8 at 119–20. He also disclosed that
a primary care doctor had previously recommended “cutting back on alcohol consumption” due to
concerns about his weight, blood pressure, and elevated liver enzymes. Id. As a result of this
disclosure, in March 2024, the Local Security Office (LSO) had the Individual undergo an
evaluation by a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist). Ex. 5. As part of the evaluation,
the Individual underwent a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which is a laboratory test that can
detect alcohol consumption with a window of detection of about 28 days. Ex. 5 at 28. The
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 DOE.
- 2 -
Individual’s PEth result was positive at a level of 263 ng/mL. Id. at 29. After the evaluation, the
DOE Psychiatrist issued a report (Report), detailing his findings. See generally id. In his Report,
the DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis
of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild Severity under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation
or reformation. Id. at 32–33.
The LSO informed the Individual in a Notification Letter that it possessed reliable information that
created substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility to hold a security clearance. In the
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. Ex. 1 at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me
as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel submitted eight numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–8) into the
record and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist. The Individual submitted three
exhibits (Ex. A–C) into the record and presented his own testimony in addition to that of his wife
and his counselor. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0135 (hereinafter cited as
“Tr.”).
II. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1. at 5.
Conditions that could raise a security concern include “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or
mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use
disorder . . . .” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22 (d). In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the
DOE Psychiatrist’s March 2024 determination that the Individual meets the DSM-5 diagnostic
criteria for AUD, Mild and has not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex.
1 at 5. The LSO also cited the Individual’s PEth results and his “abnormally elevated liver enzyme
level.”3 Id.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
3 In reviewing the allegations raised pursuant to Guideline G, I cannot find the mere facts that the Individual’s PEth
test was positive and liver enzymes were elevated to be sufficient in and of themselves to raise a security concern
pursuant to Guideline G. As such, although I will consider how the positive PEth test and elevated liver enzyme level
informed the DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion, I find that these allegations were not properly raised by the LSO as discrete
bases for the security concern, and I will not analyze them as such herein.
- 3 -
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
During an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) in November 2023, the Individual provided
information to an investigator regarding his alcohol consumption and his participation in
counseling. Ex. 8 at 136–37. He told the investigator that his alcohol use increased over time
progressively, especially during the COVID-19 pandemic starting in 2020 when he was consuming
alcohol during most nights and had continued to do so “for a couple of years.” Id. at 137. He stated
he was aware that alcohol could be affecting him negatively because his “wife expressed concerns
regarding the frequency that [he would have] five or more beers at one sitting.” Id. at 136. The
Individual told the investigator that before he began seeing his counselor (Counselor), his wife was
also concerned with his alcohol consumption because in the past, she had negative relationships
with individuals who had abusive relationships with alcohol. Id. at 137. He stated that his wife
wanted him to attend therapy, and in October 2022, the Individual began seeing the Counselor,
mainly for concerns related to anxiety and depression. Id. at 136. The Counselor’s specialty
“turned out to be” substance abuse counseling. Ex. 5 at 22.. The Individual told the investigator
that the Counselor “is convinced that [the Individual] has untreated depression and that has
contributed to alcohol abuse.” Ex. 8 at 137. He stated that the Counselor strongly urged him to
abstain from alcohol, and he did for about six months, beginning in early 2023. Id. at 136–37.
After the period of abstinence, the Individual returned to consuming alcohol, limiting his
consumption to no more than four drinks in a sitting three times a week because he believes that
more than four drinks in one sitting is considered “risky behavior.” Id. at 137. The Individual also
determined that if he could not control himself consuming alcohol in moderation, he would return
to abstinence from alcohol consumption. Id.
The Individual’s evaluation with the DOE Psychiatrist in March 2024 included a clinical interview
(CI). Ex. 5. Additionally, the Report stated that it was also based on a detailed review of the
Individual’s DOE Personnel Security File that was provided to the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at 21.
During the CI, the Individual told the DOE Psychiatrist that he started drinking alcohol during
college, and in 2009, when he separated from his first wife, whom he eventually divorced, he
abstained from alcohol for six months because he was depressed and “knew that [alcohol use] was
a bad idea.” Id. at 21–22, 25. After his depression subsided, he resumed consuming two to three
- 4 -
beers about three nights per week. Id. at 21. The Individual also told the DOE Psychiatrist that in
2016, his medical doctor told him he had elevated liver enzymes and that he “needed to cut back”
on alcohol use. Id. at 22. He stated that in 2020, when the pandemic started, he stayed home more
often and consumed “a lot of Coors Light” such that his alcohol consumption increased to five or
six beers per day. Id. He stated that his heavy drinking was “a stressor” in his current marriage. Id.
at 22. The Individual also told the DOE Psychiatrist that he began attending therapy with the
Counselor in September 2022, to address alcohol issues and his problems with anxiety and
depression, after his current wife’s “insistence” that he attend counseling. Id. The Report stated
that the Counselor made an initial diagnosis of Generalized Anxiety Disorder and “Alcohol Abuse
Disorder, Mild.” Id. at 23. The Report also stated that the Counselor subsequently noted a concern
regarding depressive disorder. Id.; see Ex. 8 at 151 (Report of Investigation (ROI) stating during
an interview with the investigator in December 2023, the Counselor told the investigator that he
had diagnosed the Individual with anxiety disorder and depressive disorder, and stated that in
treatment they had been addressing the Individual’s alcohol use). After the Counselor strongly
urged him to abstain, the Individual abstained from alcohol for six months from April 2023 through
October 2023. Ex. 5 at 23. He told the DOE Psychiatrist during the CI that he was participating in
weekly therapy sessions with the Counselor. Id. at 23. The Report stated that the Counselor noted
that the Individual had resumed “occasional drinking, but way less than before.” Id.; Ex. 8 at 151.
The Report also stated that the Counselor concluded that the “Individual’s prognosis was excellent
for some of his goals, but fair regarding his alcohol use.” Id.; see Ex. 8 at 151 (ROI reflecting
prognosis provided in the investigator’s interview with Counselor).
During the CI, the Individual told the DOE Psychiatrist that he usually consumed alcohol two or
three weekdays during the week during which he would consume three IPA beers per occasion,
and on weekends, he would drink a 12-pack of light beer on Friday and Saturday. Id. at 24. He
told the DOE Psychiatrist that he last consumed alcohol on March 12, 2024, the night before his
evaluation, when he drank a 10-ounce (oz.) double-IPA beer of 9.5 percent alcohol content and a
16 oz., 5 percent IPA beer. Id. at 24–25. As a part of the evaluation, the Individual was asked to
undergo a PEth test. . Id. at 28. The Individual’s PEth test was positive at a level of 263 ng/mL,
which is consistent with recent alcohol use, as interpreted by the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at 29. As a
result of the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Mild Severity
without sufficient evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.4 Id.
In order to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the DOE Psychiatrist
recommended that the Individual enroll in “outpatient treatment of moderate intensity,” such as
Self-Management And Recovery Training (SMART), Secular Organization for Sobriety (SOS), or
individual counseling with a substance abuse counselor. Id. at 33. He recommended that this
treatment last at least a year and that the Individual maintain sobriety during the treatment. Id.
The Individual testified that in his QNSP, he disclosed his former primary care doctor’s
recommendation to reduce his alcohol consumption and his Counselor’s past concerns about his
alcohol consumption because the Counselor had told him in a session that he believed the
Individual would benefit from treatment for AUD. Tr. at 49. The Individual stated that he initiated
4 The DOE Psychiatrist also diagnosed the Individual with Persistent Mild Depressive Disorder, with Anxious
Distress, but he concluded that the Individual does not have an emotional, mental, or personality condition that can
impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 5 at 29, 33.
- 5 -
therapy with the Counselor because of his alcohol use, though at the time he began seeing the
Counselor, he thinks he would have said that he “wanted to deal with things that maybe led to
[him] consuming alcohol.” Id. at 50. The Individual explained that his sessions with the Counselor
helped him to realize he was not alone in his struggles and that there were many different ways
that he could approach and solve his problems. Id. at 75. The Individual testified that he has been
seeing a psychologist on a weekly basis since the first or second week of July 2024. Id. at 76, 88.
He stated that when the Counselor became out of his insurance network, he sought therapy with
the psychologist who was in his network so he could attend therapy more often. Id. at 64. He
explained that in the sessions with his psychologist, they do not focus on alcohol abuse, but it
regularly comes up as part of the discussion. Id. at 76. He provided an example of how he
previously used to consume alcohol when interacting with his parents because their conversations
made him anxious, but his psychologist has successfully helped him address difficult interactions
with his parents so that he experiences less anxiety and maintains his sobriety. Id. at 90. Often, the
Individual finds that the matters he and the psychologist discussed were affected by or contributed
to his use of alcohol. Id. The Individual stated that while he does not think his therapy sessions are
critical to his sobriety, he thinks it “would be a mistake to stop going to therapy,” and he has no
plans to stop going “anytime soon.” Id. at 76–77.
The Individual testified that he was abstinent from alcohol from April 2023 to October 2023. Id.
at 51. He “sporadically” attended SOS meetings during this time period and was seeing the
Counselor, but in retrospect, he sees this time period as “abstinence” rather than “recovery.”5 Id.
He said that this period of abstinence was “an acknowledgment that [he] needed to do something,”
but he was not consuming alcohol because his wife was unhappy with his alcohol consumption
rather than because he wanted to be abstinent from alcohol. Id. at 51–52. In October 2023, the
Individual was unhappy and stressed out with work and decided that he could successfully
consume alcohol in moderation. Id. at 52–53. He explained that he was “struggling to find
enjoyment in things that [he] used to enjoy with alcohol” and that he convinced himself that
consuming alcohol would allow him to have more genuine interactions. Id. at 53.
Shortly after he completed his May 2023 QNSP, the Individual attended a six-week alcohol
awareness class offered by his employer’s employee assistance program (EAP). Id. at 56–57. The
class covered a variety of topics, including what constituted “risky consumption of alcohol,” which
later gave the Individual parameters to set for his plan to consume alcohol in moderation. Id. The
Individual and his wife decided to participate in “dry January” in January 2024, but he resumed
his alcohol consumption in February 2024. Id. at 58.
At the end of April 2024, the Individual consciously decided he was going to abstain from alcohol
consumption again because he “had a feeling” about what the DOE Psychiatrist’s report was going
to say. Id. at 59. Having talked to some colleagues in the EAP class who had previously had issues
with their security clearance, the Individual decided he was going to stop consuming alcohol on
April 29, 2024. Id. On May 2, 2024, the Individual was informed by the LSO that his access
authorization had been suspended, and on May 6, 2024, he received a copy of the DOE
Psychiatrist’s Report. Id. at 61. The Individual now acknowledges that at the time the DOE
5 The Individual views “abstinence” as a goal not to consume alcohol, whereas he views “recovery” as “dealing with
the underlying issues that made alcohol something that [he] turn[ed] to for a way to cope.” Tr. at 77–78.
- 6 -
Psychiatrist evaluated him, he had a problem with his alcohol consumption. Id. at 82. He also
stated that when he received the Report, he was “shocked” by how accurate the observations were.
Id.
The Individual has been attending a weekly recovery meeting called “Yogis in Recovery.” Id. at
63. The meeting is an adaption of an AA style meeting, where attendees spend forty-five minutes
doing a meditation reading that is related to sobriety and then sharing. Id. at 63, 71. After that,
there is a forty-five-minute yoga session. Id. at 71. The class also uses a modified version of AA’s
twelve step method, and the Individual feels he has made good progress on the first six steps. Id.
at 72. He began attending those meetings on July 7, 2024, and has attended almost every week
since then up to the date of the hearing. Id. at 70. He also regularly attends yoga classes that are
not recovery based. Id. He believes that yoga has improved the ways he approaches problems at
work and changed the way he interacts with people. Id. at 73. It has helped him accept situations
that he cannot change or affect, which has greatly reduced his anxieties. Id. The Individual said
that the yoga has not just affected his sobriety, but it has changed the way he “interact[s] with the
world.” Id. at 74. He plans to continue attending these weekly sessions indefinitely because he
enjoys the connections he has made in the meetings and being surrounded by people who share his
experiences. Id. at 77, 98. While he does not have a formal sponsor at these meetings, he testified
that he has made several friendships there and that there are a number of people he would feel
comfortable asking for help if he needed it. Id. at 86.
The Individual has recently attended some online SMART Recovery meetings, but there were no
in person meetings within an hour of his home, and he did not find the online meetings to be
particularly beneficial. Id. at 64. The Individual also attended four sessions of Refuge Recovery, a
recovery program that uses meditation, in July and August 2024. Id at 67, 87–88. The Individual
testified that he enjoyed these sessions, but he felt that he was “oversubscribed with commitments”
and, therefore, prioritized going to the Yogis in Recovery meetings weekly. Id. at 67–68. On one
occasion, the Individual attended a Refuge Recovery meeting after an upsetting event at work that
he would have previously dealt with by going to get a drink. Id. at 67–68. During this meeting, he
realized that going to a meeting where he completed a meditation and shared his feelings was
valuable and a healthy way to deal with his emotions. Id. at 68.
The Individual has also tried to change where he spends time socially and he has become “open to
[discussing] his alcohol issues with both friends and coworkers.” Id. at 69. For example, he stated
that in the past, he used to have a few beers with coworkers after work, but he decided he was
going to tell them that he had some alcohol problems that he is trying to address. Id. He stated that
when he mentioned to his coworkers that he was abstaining from consuming alcohol, “almost all
of them were quite supportive.” Id. When he does go to social events where other people are
consuming alcohol, he has found that having a soda or a seltzer in his hand helps him deal with
the social anxiety that he would have previously dealt with by consuming alcohol. Id. at 78–79.
The Individual also has found that being open and telling his friends and coworkers why he has
not been consuming alcohol has been helpful in those situations. Id. at 79.
In support of his assertions of abstinence, the Individual submitted four PEth test results. Ex. A;
Ex. D. The tests were dated June 14, 2024, August 9, 2024, September 10, 2024, and October 18,
- 7 -
2024.6 Ex. A; Ex. D. The first test returned a value of 11 ng/mL, which indicates “[a]bstinence
or light alcohol consumption.” Ex. A. The remaining three tests returned a value of less than 10
ng/mL, which means no alcohol was detected. Ex. A; Ex. D. He also provided attendance sheets
from his “Yogis in Recovery” class that he has been attending since early July 2024. Ex. B; Ex.
C at 1.
The Individual’s wife testified that she has known the Individual since 2017, and they have been
married since January 2020. Tr. at 14. The Individual’s wife explained that during the COVID-19
pandemic, she became concerned about the amount of alcohol that she and the Individual were
consuming, and they decided to try to “cut back.” Id. at 24. Around that time, there was one night
where the Individual drank more than he intended. Id. The next morning, he told the wife about
the incident, decided to stop drinking indefinitely, and begin to see a counselor at his wife’s urging.
Id. The Individual began consuming alcohol again after this period of sobriety.7 Id. at 25. She
stated that the last time she saw the Individual consume alcohol was near the end of April 2024.
Id. Since that time, she does not believe that the Individual has consumed any alcohol outside of
her presence because they spend a great deal of time together, and even when one of them is out
of town, they will often spend several hours talking on the phone each evening. Id. at 17. On one
occasion, while the Individual was on a work trip, they discussed how the Individual would handle
a social event with his coworkers at a brewery. Id. Before the social event, they discussed his plan
to order some seltzers instead of consuming alcohol, and after the social event, they spoke on the
phone and the Individual sounded sober and told his wife about the flavors of the seltzers he drank.
Id. at 17–18.
The wife is not currently consuming any alcohol. Id. at 18. She had some alcoholic beverages over
the summer but began to abstain from consuming alcohol with the Individual at his request in “July
or August.” Id. The wife noted that she and her husband have been trying to make sure that social
events they attend as a couple are less alcohol focused, like going to a restaurant or friend’s home
for dinner instead of meeting at a brewery. Id. at 21. The wife also testified that she knows stress,
particularly related to work, has been a trigger for her husband’s alcohol use in the past. Id. at 19.
She said that she believes he has been learning to handle that stress in a healthier manner,
specifically by talking to his supervisors and by taking time off. Id. The wife also said that she
knows he has been working on developing stronger coping strategies with the psychologist, who
he has been seeing on a weekly basis. Id. at 20, 39. She stated that the Individual was previously
seeing the Counselor but has been seeing the psychologist since early summer 2024. Id. at 20, 39.
She cited walking to work, attending yoga classes several times a week, and reading as strategies
that she has seen him use recently. Id. at 20–21. The wife knows that one yoga class he has been
attending regularly is “Yogis in Recovery,” which consists of a recovery meeting followed by a
6 When asked if the lack of a test from July 2024 concerned him, the DOE Psychiatrist said that it was a mild concern,
but the fact that the Individual voluntarily underwent the testing, without a recommendation from the DOE
Psychiatrist, allayed those concerns. Tr. at 158. The DOE Psychiatrist also stated that based on the Individual’s honesty
about his alcohol consumption at the time of the evaluation, he found the Individual’s testimony that the time between
tests was not intentional to be credible. Id. at 99, 154–55, 158.
7 It was not clear from the wife’s testimony whether she was describing a separate period of abstinence than the six-
month period in 2023 that the Individual had described.
- 8 -
yoga class. Id. at 40. She believes that this class has given the Individual “a sense of community”
that he was struggling to find in more traditional recovery groups. Id. at 41.
The Individual’s wife testified that she has seen significant improvements in the Individual’s
physical health since he stopped consuming alcohol. Id. at 23. He has lost weight and been able to
discontinue the use of some medications. Id. The yoga classes he has been attending have made
him more fit and improved his posture. Id. She also believes that he has seemed less depressed and
more optimistic since he stopped consuming alcohol. Id.
. The Individual’s wife explained that she views the Individual’s current period of sobriety as
different from the previous ones because the Individual appears “to be enjoying sobriety and the
changes that it has brought to his life, instead of feeling like it’s something that [the wife has]
imposed upon him.” Id. The wife stated that this time the Individual wants his sobriety “for his
own wellbeing rather than trying to make his wife happy.” Id. at 26. She also credits the Report
for shifting the Individual’s perspective on his relationship with alcohol. Id. Because of all of these
factors, the wife has a “level of optimism” about the Individual’s sobriety that she has not had in
the past. Id..
The Counselor testified that he is a licensed clinical social worker who has historically worked a
lot with individuals who struggle drug and alcohol abuse. Id. at 103. He has been seeing the
Individual since October 2022. Id. He stated that they have spent a great deal of time in their
sessions discussing the Individual’s alcohol use and how it affected other mental health issues that
might be causing the Individual distress. Id. at 104. The Counselor explained that during their
therapeutic relationship, the Individual typically seemed very ambivalent about his sobriety, going
through periods where he would stop consuming alcohol, then start again. Id. at 105.
Approximately four or five months prior to the hearing, the Counselor noticed that “a light switch
had gone off” and “something started to click” that made the Individual notably excited about
maintaining his sobriety. Id. The Counselor also noted around this time that the Individual began
attending a type of AA meeting that included a yoga practice that the Counselor knew the
Individual found to be very valuable. Id. at 105–06. The Counselor knows another person who has
abstained from consuming alcohol for a long time and attends this recovery group and “thinks very
highly of it.” Id. at 123. The Counselor felt that previously, the Individual had ceased consuming
alcohol because everyone told him that he should, but this time, the Individual was not “mad” that
he needed to be sober. Id. at 106. Now, the Individual had stopped consuming alcohol because he
realized that it was the best thing for him. Id.
The Counselor testified that due to some changes in the Individual’s insurance, the Counselor was
no longer accepting the Individual’s insurance, so he had only seen the Individual approximately
monthly over the last six months, but he knew the Individual was also seeing a psychologist8 on a
weekly basis. Id. at 107–08. Previously, the Individual had been seeing the Counselor on a weekly
basis. Ex. 5 at 23. The Counselor said, when he saw the Individual at the beginning of the summer
for the first time after a month or so, he noticed a profound change in the Individual, noting that
8 The Counselor testified that he had previously supervised the psychologist that the Individual is currently seeing and
confirmed that she has the necessary training to help the Individual maintain his abstinence from alcohol. Tr. at 124.
He also testified that it was his recollection that the Individual reported having a good relationship with the
psychologist. Id.
- 9 -
he seemed more calm, less anxious, and less depressed. Id. at 110–11. In the last six months, he
has emphasized to the Individual the importance of developing a strong “sober support network”
as well as generally not isolating himself from other people around him. Id. at 111–12. The
Counselor explained that one way the Individual achieved this goal was engaging with his
colleagues at work by going to their lunchtime card game. Id. at 112. He also believes that the
Individual is now more willing to let other people support him in his struggles with alcohol
consumption and mental health. Id. at 110, 113. The Counselor thinks that the Individual’s current
participation in therapy and recovery groups, combined with his support network, should be
sufficient for him to maintain his abstinence from alcohol, though he believes that the Individual
would benefit from continuing to see him every six weeks or so for the near future. Id. at 125.
The Counselor testified that the Individual’s prognosis regarding alcohol use had improved from
fair, which is the prognosis he provided when interviewed by the in December 2023, to “good to
excellent” at the time of the hearing. Id. at 115; Ex. 5 at 23 (Report); Ex. 8 at 151 (ROI). He also
stated that the Individual’s risk for resumption of problematic alcohol consumption was clinically
low, particularly if the Individual stays connected to his support networks. Id. at 121–22.
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that he felt that the Individual’s participation in therapy and various
other outpatient programs fulfilled the treatment recommendations that he made in his Report. Id.
at 145. He stated that, in his opinion, the Individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation
or reformation from his AUD “even though he’s only done six months [of abstinence] . . . .” Id.
at 145. The DOE Psychiatrist went on to explain that while he generally keeps with his “guideline”
of one year of treatment to show rehabilitation or reformation, he felt that the Individual’s
testimony and that of his witnesses showed that there was a good reason to deviate from that
guideline in this case. Id. at 146. The DOE Psychiatrist noted that he found the wife’s testimony
to be compelling when she testified about how the Individual’s dedication to recovery dramatically
changed over the summer and how he began to enjoy his sobriety. Id. at 147. He was also
impressed by the Individual’s honesty in reporting his problem to DOE without any precipitating
incident and his inclusion of his former primary care doctor’s concern about his liver enzymes. Id.
at 148. The DOE Psychiatrist also noted that the Individual stopped consuming alcohol prior to
receiving the Report with the DOE Psychiatrist’s recommendations and that starting work on an
issue like an AUD quickly is “a good prognostic sign.” Id. Finally, the DOE Psychiatrist explained
that the Individual’s AUD was “on the mild end,” which also made him more comfortable with
the Individual’s progress in a shorter period of time. Id. at 148–49. When asked why he felt the
Individual’s current period of sobriety was different than the Individual’s previous attempts, the
DOE Psychiatrist said that the testimony he heard, including the Counselor’s comment about the
change being “like a light switch went on,” convinced him that the Individual has progressed
enough to be considered reformed or rehabilitated. Id. at 149–50.
The DOE Psychiatrist stated that he felt the Individual’s prognosis regarding AUD was good on a
good, fair, poor scale. Id. at 150, 155. He explained that he feels the combination of the Individual’s
regular “Yogis in Recovery” meetings, his weekly meetings with his psychologist, and his monthly
meetings with his Counselor are a sufficient constellation of treatments for the Individual to
- 10 -
continue to be successful in his recovery. Id. at 162. He testified that the Individual’s AUD is in
sustained remission. Id. at 164.
V. Analysis
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
(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.
Here, the Individual has clearly acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, and he has
displayed a willingness to admit to his previous shortcomings without becoming defensive about
them. He has been seeing a psychologist on a weekly basis to discuss issues in life, including his
previous alcohol use. He has supplemented those sessions with monthly meetings with his
Counselor although his Counselor no longer accepts his insurance plan to ensure he has
consistency in his treatment. To complement his therapy, the Individual has tried several recovery
meetings and found one that works well with his personality and lifestyle. He has provided a
printout showing that he has been attending these yoga and recovery meeting sessions on a weekly
basis. The attendance sheet also showed that the Individual has been attending other yoga classes
regularly as well, and his testimony about how these classes have affected his outlook on life was
compelling. The Individual also established that he has plans in place for how to be around other
people who are consuming alcohol while remaining abstinent and that he has a strong support
network that he can call on should he need it. The Individual testified that several of his coworkers
were supportive of his sobriety and that he had made friends with several people in his recovery
meetings who he felt comfortable reaching out to if necessary. More specifically, his wife’s
anecdote about the social event at a brewery with his coworkers showed that the Individual is
- 11 -
willing to lean on his support network to help him through potentially difficult situations when he
needs the support.
The Individual testified to his commitment to abstinence from alcohol, and his testimony was
corroborated by the testimony of his wife and his Counselor. The Individual also provided several
PEth tests to provide laboratory proof of his abstinence which reflect his abstinence starting
approximately early May 2024 through October 2024, even though the DOE Psychiatrist did not
specifically recommend the Individual provide these tests as proof of abstinence. Both the wife
and the Counselor’s independent testimony about the change in the Individual’s attitude toward
sobriety and life were persuasive as well and showed how the Individual’s perspective had changed
compared to previous attempts at sobriety. While the Individual’s period of abstinence and
treatment at the time of the hearing was shorter than what the DOE Psychiatrist recommended in
his Report, he has engaged in counseling with two providers who are providing treatment to
address his substance abuse issues as recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist. The Individual’s
weekly recovery meeting is another form of regular treatment that the Individual participates in
that goes beyond what was recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist. Further, the DOE Psychiatrist’s
testimony that he believed the Individual was rehabilitated and reformed has convinced me that
the Individual’s treatment, combined with his negative PEth tests, and the credible testimony of
his witnesses, was sufficient to show that he has established a pattern of abstinence in accordance
with the treatment recommendations.
For the reasons stated above, I find the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security
concerns raised by the LSO pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
VI. Conclusion
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Brenda B. Balzon
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals