PSH-24-0145

*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 27, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0145
)
______________________________________)
Issued: November 20, 2024
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Katie Quintana, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) to hold an access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s
(DOE) regulations, as 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. In April 2006, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated
(DWI). Exhibit (Ex.) 14 at 156–57.2 In December 2023, the Individual reported that he had been
hospitalized for three days following Thanksgiving for “Alcohol Treatment.” Ex. 6 at 42–43.
Specifically, the Individual reported that he had a seizure that led to hospitalization.3 Id. at 43. The
Individual noted that he last consumed alcohol on November 25, 2023, and in the time since had
been “refraining from drinking” and “taking classes” through the Employee Concerns Program
(ECP) at his worksite. Id.
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 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.
3 The Individual’s medical records reveal that he was diagnosed with “Alcohol withdrawal seizure without
complication.” Ex. 11 at 76.
- 2 -
The Individual subsequently underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE consultant
psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in March 2024. Ex. 12. Following the evaluation, the DOE
Psychologist issued a report (Report) in which he diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use
Disorder, Moderate, in Early Remission, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Id. at 99. He also concluded that there
was inadequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. Id.
The Local Security Office (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 7–9. 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 6.
Upon receipt of the Notification Letter, the Individual exercised his right under the Part 710
regulations to request an administrative review hearing. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of
Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me the Administrative Judge in the case, and I
subsequently conducted an administrative hearing in the matter. At the hearing, the DOE Counsel
submitted sixteen numbered exhibits (Ex. 1–16) into the record and presented the testimony of the
DOE Psychologist. The Individual submitted nine exhibits (Ex. A–I) into the record, and he
presented his own testimony as well as that of his EAP Counselor and his Supervisor. The hearing
transcript in the case will be cited as “Tr.” followed by the relevant page number.
II. Regulatory Standard
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with
the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security
determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d
1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
III. Notification Letter and Associated Security Concerns
- 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 specifically cites Guideline G. Ex. 1. Guideline G relates to security risks arising from
excessive alcohol consumption. “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.
In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of Alcohol Use
Disorder, Moderate, in Early Remission, and his opinion that there was inadequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 6. The LSO also cited the Individual’s 2006 DWI arrest as
well as his November 2024 alcohol-related hospitalization. Id. The LSO’s allegations justify its
invocation of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (d).
IV. Findings of Fact
According to the Report, the Individual was arrested and charged with DWI in 2006 after “he
consumed seven to eight beers . . . and shots of whiskey over the course of six to eight hours.” Ex.
12 at 95–96. As a result of the arrest, the Individual was court-ordered to attend an approximately
one-month long workshop for “alcohol counseling/education,” which he successfully completed.
Id. at 96. Following the arrest, the Individual reportedly remained abstinent until the fall of 2007,
when he resumed his alcohol consumption, drinking two to three times per week and
“occasionally” reaching the point of intoxication. Id.
The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that around the spring of 2020, his mother’s health was
declining and the COVID lockdowns were beginning, at which time, his alcohol use slowly began
to increase to daily consumption of two to three beers on weekdays and three to five beers on
weekends. Id. The Individual maintained that this pattern continued until November 2023. Id.
The Individual reported that on November 22, he began consuming craft beers and continued to
drink until November 25. Id. During that period, the Individual estimated that he consumed two
twelve packs of 5.6% alcohol by volume (ABV) beers and one twelve pack of 4.7% ABV beers.
Id. Following this period of consumption, the Individual abstained from alcohol on November 26
and returned to work on November 27. Id. When he was preparing to leave work for the day on
November 27, a coworker became concerned for the Individual’s wellbeing and called for an
ambulance. Id. The Individual was hospitalized for three days due to an alcohol withdrawal related
seizure. Id. at 97.
In December 2023, the Individual was submitted for a Fitness for Duty (FFD) evaluation at his
worksite. Id.; Ex. 4. In March 2024, the DOE Psychologist spoke with the psychologist who
evaluated the Individual for the FFD (FFD Psychologist). Ex. 12 at 97 She reported to the DOE
Psychologist that the Individual had complied with the requirements for the FFD program,
including three phosphatidylethanol (PEth) tests,4 ethyl glucuronide (EtG) tests, and alcohol breath
4 According to the Report, the PEth “test detects any significant alcohol use over the past three to four weeks.” Ex. 12
at 98.
- 4 -
tests, all of which were negative.5 Id. The FFD Psychologist stated that she met with the Individual
on five occasions and felt that the Individual “demonstrated good insights into his drinking
behavior.” Id. She confirmed that the Individual completed the requirements of the FFD program.6
Id.
The DOE Psychologist also noted in his Report that he spoke with the Individual’s EAP Counselor,
who reported that the Individual had completed her six-week Alcohol Awareness and Education
course and was attending her twelve-week Maintaining Changes course.7 Id. The EAP Counselor
found the Individual to be an active participant in the group course and felt that he appeared “to
be honest in discussing the pros and cons of alcohol consumption and navigating his current sober
living.” Id.
The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that, along with the FFD program and EAP classes, he
had started attending a SMART Recovery8 support group. Id. At the time of the evaluation, the
Individual had attended two sessions and intended to continue. Id. He maintained that he had been
abstinent from alcohol since November 25, 2023. Id. at 99. As part of the evaluation, the DOE
Psychologist ordered a PEth test which was negative. Id. at 98. The DOE Psychologist opined that
the PEth test results were consistent with the Individual’s self-report of abstinence. Id. at 98–99.
The DOE Psychologist ultimately determined that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a
diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in Early Remission without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 99. In order to establish adequate evidence of rehabilitation
and reformation, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual continue to attend
SMART Recovery twice per week and find a sponsor. Id. He also recommended that the Individual
document his attendance through a sign-in sheet. Id. He recommended that that Individual remain
abstinent and engage in twice weekly SMART Recovery meetings for a period of one year,
documenting his abstinence with PEth tests at least once every four to six weeks over the course
of twelve months. Id. at 99‒100.
V. Hearing Testimony
At the hearing, the Individual’s Supervisor testified on his behalf. Tr. at 37. The Supervisor
testified that he has known the Individual for approximately twenty years and currently sees him
approximately once or twice per week. Id. at 37, 39. The Supervisor stated that the Individual is
one of his top performers, and he was unaware that the Individual had an alcohol problem prior to
his clearance being suspended. Id. at 40. The Supervisor opined that COVID “was a big hit” to the
Individual “because it impacted what he was able to do with his social life.” Id. He testified that
5 The Report noted that the Individual’s first PEth test was positive due to its proximity to the Individual’s alcohol
consumption over the Thanksgiving holiday. Ex. 12 at 97.
6 Although the FFD Psychologist submitted a letter of support on behalf of the Individual, it is not clear from the
record exactly what the requirements of the FFD program were. See Ex. C; Ex. 12 at 97.
7 The Individual submitted a Certificate of Completion for both the Alcohol Awareness and Education course as well
as the Maintaining Changes in Alcohol Use course. Ex. C; Ex. D; Ex. E.
8 SMART Recovery is an “evidence-based treatment approach.” Ex. 12 at 99.
- 5 -
although he knew the Individual was consuming alcohol outside of work hours, there was no
indication that the Individual “had a drinking problem.” Id. The Supervisor stated that since losing
his clearance, the Individual shared that he was “drinking a lot more than [the Supervisor] was
aware of[,]” but since having the seizure, the Individual has been abstinent from alcohol. Id. at 42.
The EAP Counselor testified on the Individual’s behalf and stated that the Individual first reached
out for EAP services in early December 2023. Id. at 16. She testified that the Individual completed
both her six-week Alcohol Awareness class as well as her twelve-week Maintaining Changes class,
and the Individual was “was always alert and attentive.”9 Id. at 18–19, 22. She also testified that
she saw the Individual for ten individual counseling sessions, and she felt that the Individual had
been “open and honest regarding abstaining, his sobriety, what he’s been doing.” Id. at 20. She
elaborated, stating that the Individual had shared “the journey in navigating abstaining from
alcohol, the journey of sobriety, the pros and cons of drinking, of not drinking.” Id. The EAP
Counselor testified that, to her knowledge, the Individual had not consumed alcohol since the
weekend prior to his seizure, and he intended to remain abstinent. Id. at 18, 24–25. She stated that
she is optimistic about the Individual’s continued sobriety “as long as he continues to reach out
and stay connected” to his support systems. Id. at 28.
The Individual also testified during the hearing and stated that he last consumed alcohol on
November 25, 2023, prior to the seizure.10 Id. at 48. The Individual testified that after he completed
the FFD program, he started attending SMART Recovery in late February 2024 per the FFD
Psychologist’s recommendation. Id. at 55, 59–60. The Individual testified that the FFD
Psychologist felt that SMART Recovery would provide a good resource for him to “connect with
other people that are also navigating recovery[.]” Id. at 60. He stated that SMART Recovery also
offers tools for managing triggers and “navigating situations where you might feel you would
compromise your sobriety[.]” Id. He testified that when he first started attending SMART
Recovery, he would go once per week on Thursdays. Id. Then in June 2024, he began attending a
Monday group as well.11 Id. The Individual testified that he plans on continuing to attend SMART
Recovery meetings for the foreseeable future. Id. at 68.
The Individual noted that SMART Recovery does not have sponsors, but he stated that he has
become close to the group facilitators and has their phones numbers should he need help. Id. at
9 The EAP Counselor testified that the Individual continues to attend the Maintaining Changes classes. Tr. at 23.
10 To support his claims of abstinence, the Individual submitted nine negative PEth tests dated: March 5, 2024; April
5, 2024; May 3, 2024; May 31, 2024; June 28, 2024; July 24, 2024; August 20, 2024; September 13, 2024; and October
7, 2024. Ex. I at 27–44. This exhibit does not include the two negative PEth tests he underwent as part of the FFD
program on January 16, 2024, and February 12, 2024, and cited by the FFD Psychologist in her letter. Ex. C. It also
does not include the negative PEth test that was administered as part of the DOE Psychologist’s evaluation. Ex. 12 at
98.
11 The Individual submitted his notes for each dated session from his Monday SMART Recovery sessions from
February 2024 through the end of May 2024, corroborating his testimony. Ex. G. He additionally submitted SMART
Recovery sign-in sheets for both the Monday and Thursday groups from late May 2024 through mid-October 2024,
corroborating his testimony. Ex. H. The Individual testified that he did not become aware of the sign-in sheets until
he had been participating in the group for some time, which is why he was unable to submit formal sign-in sheets
corroborating his attendance prior to late May 2024. Tr. at 61.
- 6 -
62–63. He also stated that he is a member of the group text chain where group members can share
articles, helpful links, or reach out for help. Id. at 64.
Regarding his EAP classes, the Individual testified that after he completed the Maintaining
Changes class, he chose to continue attending beyond the twelve weeks because he found it helpful
as it made him feel that he was not “the only person dealing with this kind of situation.” Id. at 57–
58. He stated that he wants to continue attending until another EAP class addressing trauma begins.
Id. at 59. At that point, he would like to alternate the weeks on which he attends the trauma class
and the Maintaining Changes class. Id.
The Individual testified that he realizes that his previous alcohol consumption was problematic,
but maintaining his sobriety has not been as difficult as he expected. Id. at 69, 83. He stated that
he is able to be in situations where people are consuming alcohol, and he does not have an urge to
drink. Id. He noted that he sometimes feels “a little left out” in social situations where people are
consuming alcohol, but he does not experience cravings. Id. at 70. The Individual testified that he
frequents “a non-alcohol bar” in order to “get out of the house and talk to people.” Id. at 74.
After hearing the testimony of the witnesses, the DOE Psychologist testified that although the
Individual had only been abstinent from alcohol for approximately eleven months at the time of
the hearing and had not quite reached the recommended one year of abstinence, the Individual had
nonetheless established adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from the Alcohol Use
Disorder as the Individual was able to successfully “continue on the path” of abstinence and
recovery that he had already started when the DOE Psychologist initially evaluated him. Id. at 89.
He further added that the Individual’s prognosis for sustained sobriety was “good” as the
Individual was engaged in the treatment process and appeared to have a willingness and desire to
gain further insight into his recovery. Id. at 90–91.
VI. Analysis
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses during the hearing. In resolving the question of the
Individual’s eligibility for access authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors
prescribed in 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) and the Adjudicative Guidelines. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns cited by the LSO under
Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored. The specific findings that I make in support of this decision are
discussed below.
Conditions that may mitigate a Guideline G security concern 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 maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
- 7 -
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.
At the time of the hearing, the Individual had: (1) recognized that he previously had a problem
with alcohol, (2) completed the FFD program, (3) completed two EAP alcohol classes and
continued to participate as of the hearing date, (4) attended individual counseling through EAP,
and (4) engaged regularly and consistently in SMART Recovery meetings. Additionally, he
underwent twelve PEth tests over the course of ten months, all of which were negative for the
presence of alcohol. Furthermore, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had established
rehabilitation and reformation from the Alcohol Use Disorder with a good prognosis. As such, the
Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol, in
accordance with treatment recommendations, and continues to participate in recovery through his
EAP classes and SMART Recovery meetings. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has
established the applicability of mitigating factor (b). Id. at ¶ 23(b). For the forgoing reasons, I find
that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security concerns raised in the SSC.
VII. Conclusion
After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I have found that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns associated with Guideline G. 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 in 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Katie Quintana
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals