PSH-24-0156

*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: July 22, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0156
)
)
Issued: January 14, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Janet R. H. Fishman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 The Individual underwent a psychological evaluation in April
2024 by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 8 at 35–36. In his report
(Report), the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual habitually or binge consumed
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Id. at 41. The DOE Psychologist also concluded that
the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth
Edition – Text Revision (DSM-5-TR)3 criteria for diagnoses of (1) Substance Use Disorder, without
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 Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 273-page PDF workbook.
References to the LSO’s exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner of
each exhibit page.
3 The Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), when citing to the DOE Psychologist’s Report, refers to the diagnostic
criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition rather than the DSM-5-TR.
Compare Ex. 1 at 5 (SSC) with Ex. 8 at 43 (DOE Psychologist’s Report). This Decision will refer to the DOE
- 2 -
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; (2) Major Depression; and (3) Generalized
Anxiety Disorder. Id. at 41–42. The Local Security Office (LSO) subsequently informed the
Individual in a Notification Letter that it possessed reliable information that created substantial
doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. In the Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised
security concerns under Guidelines G and I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 10. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative
hearing. The LSO submitted ten exhibits (Ex. 1–10). The Individual submitted four exhibits (Ex.
A–D).4 The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of three additional
witnesses. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0156 (Tr.) at 10–55, 56–64, 66–72, 74–89.
The LSO called the DOE Psychologist to testify. Id. at 91–119.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited to Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) as a basis for its substantial doubt regarding
the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. “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 Report from April 2024 (1)
finding that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria under the DSM-5-TR for a diagnosis
of substance use disorder,5 without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and (2)
concluding that the Individual habitually or binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s citation to the DOE Psychologist’s opinion justifies its invocation
of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(c)‒(d) (listing as security concerns “habitual or
binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment” and “diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder”).
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) as the other basis for its substantial doubt
regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5. “Certain emotional,
mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. A formal
diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under this guideline.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 27. The SSC cited the DOE Psychologist’s finding that the Individual met sufficient
diagnostic criteria under the DSM-5-TR for diagnoses of Major Depression and Generalized
Anxiety Disorder and that either condition could impair judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness if left untreated. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s citation of the DOE Psychologist’s opinion
justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b) (identifying that
Psychologist’s diagnosis as made pursuant to the DSM-5-TR criteria, which is the version of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual referenced in the Report.
4 Exhibits A through C were submitted as a single PDF. Citations to Exhibits A through C are to the PDF page number
in the order in which the pages appear.
5 The DOE Psychologist used the term “substance use disorder” but used the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for “alcohol
use disorder.” See Ex. 8 at 43–44.
- 3 -
a security concern may arise from “an opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional that
the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness”).
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
Dep’t 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
a. Individual’s Background, Alcohol Use, Treatment, and Related Testimony
The Individual reported having been anxious his whole life. Ex. 8 at 40; Tr. at 13. He began
drinking shortly after he turned 21 in around 2016. Ex. 8 at 38, 40; Tr. at 14. For the first few years
he drank, the Individual drank “maybe a few times per month, socially . . . with friends.” Tr. at 32.
In 2021, his drinking increased due to stress related to the COVID-19 pandemic. Id. at 13, 32
(Individual testifying “when COVID-19 hit, that’s when [his drinking] got more intense”); Ex. 8
at 40 (reporting to the DOE Psychologist that in 2021 he started drinking about two to three
alcoholic beverages per night). He testified that his alcohol consumption underwent a “gradual
ramp” up and that “in 2023[] and [ ] into 2024” he was drinking about half of a 750-mL bottle of
80-proof whiskey per day, most days per week. Tr. at 32–33; see also Ex. 8 at 40. The Individual
indicated that he typically drank this amount alone in his apartment. Tr. at 53.
In November 2023, the Individual’s friends and family recommended that the Individual seek a
therapist. Id. at 30–31. The Individual explained that, because he had never been through this
process before, and also because of the holiday season and a lack of responsiveness from
professionals’ offices, he experienced delays in identifying a care provider. Id. On January 22,
2024, the Individual consumed a full 750-mL bottle of whiskey over a 12-hour period. Ex. 8 at 39;
Tr. at 18. The Individual reported feeling stressed from work, having difficulty sleeping, and
drinking this amount as “self-harm.” Ex. 7 at 25; see also Ex. 8 at 39 (reporting to the DOE
Psychologist that “he wanted to punish or hurt himself”); Tr. at 18 (Individual testifying that
- 4 -
leading up to the incident he “was feeling pretty down about not being able to see some family due
to people having COVID . . . , a lot of stressors coming back to work, and social anxieties . . .”).
The Individual eventually regurgitated the alcohol and fell asleep. Ex. 8 at 39. When he awoke the
next day, he called his significant other (Significant Other), and she arrived at his residence. Id.;
Tr. at 20. She stayed with the Individual so he would not be alone. Ex. 8 at 39.
The Individual testified that up until then, he “didn’t ever feel out of control” with respect to his
alcohol use. Tr. at 32–33. However, the January 22, 2024, incident made him realize that his
alcohol use had become a problem. Id. at 33. He further testified that he “was feeling like [he]
wanted to stop” and “fe[eling] discouraged because [he] thought [he had] gone past the point where
[he] can do it” by himself. Id. at 33–34. Accordingly, he “began looking for outside help.” Id.
Immediately after the January 22, 2024, incident, the Individual and his Significant Other
researched healthcare providers with whom the Individual could speak. Ex. 8 at 39; Tr. at 20. The
Individual testified to meeting with two different therapists through his employer’s Employee
Assistance Program (EAP). Tr. at 20–21; see also Ex. 7 at 25 (Individual’s response to a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI) indicating he spoke with an EAP therapist in late January 2024). The
Individual also met with an in-patient substance abuse treatment program. Tr. at 21; Ex. 7 at 25
(response to LOI indicating he met with the in-patient program in late January 2024). The
Individual testified that he took an assessment with the in-patient program, “ultimately deciding
that [the program] wasn’t what [he] needed.” Tr. at 21 (stating that “I went there and took one of
their assessments, ultimately deciding that that wasn’t what I needed.”); Ex. 7 at 25 (response to
LOI indicating that “[i]t was determined in-patient care was not required . . .”).
In March 2024, the Individual voluntarily began seeing a psychiatrist. Tr. at 18, 22–23; see also
Ex. 8 at 39. As of the hearing, the Individual remained under the psychiatrist’s care and testified
that the psychiatrist had directed the following treatment elements: (1) appointments occurring
every six weeks; (2) taking medications as prescribed; and (3) attending SMART Recovery6
sessions. Tr. at 22–23, 25–27, 41–42. The Individual indicated that, outside of the recurring
appointments, his psychiatrist remained available for communication via a patient portal. Id. at
26–27. He further testified that he intends to keep seeing the psychiatrist indefinitely. Id. at 47.
At the beginning of his treatment, the Individual, at the direction of his psychiatrist, started taking
medication to assist with addictions to alcohol and nicotine, as well as his trouble sleeping. Tr. at
6 SMART stands for Self-Management and Recovery Training. According to its website,
SMART [program] is an evidenced-based recovery method grounded in Rational Emotive
Behavioral Therapy (REBT) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), that supports people with
substance dependencies or problem behaviors to:
1. Build and maintain motivation
2. Cope with urges and cravings
3. Manage thoughts, feelings and behaviors
4. Lead a balanced life
What is SMART Recovery?, SMART Recovery, https://smartrecovery.org/what-is-smart-recovery (last visited Jan. 13,
2025).
- 5 -
22. Thereafter, in May 2024, he received two medications for his anxiety. Id. At the time of the
hearing, the Individual testified he still took “all four of those medications, as directed . . . .” Id.
He testified the anxiety medication has “certainly assisted” him and that his “base level has
definitely improved with the medication[ ].” Id. at 27–28. Regarding his addiction medication, the
Individual described its effect as “eliminat[ing] the good feelings of drinking[ ] [s]o there’s less
desire . . . to engage in that activity . . . .” Id. at 35.
On July 10, 2024, the Individual checked into an emergency room and was hospitalized with
symptoms of delirium and nausea and unable to keep liquids or food down. Id. at 24. The
Individual’s Significant Other testified that the Individual had tried to quit alcohol use “cold
turkey” and that he was going through “more severe symptoms of . . . alcohol withdrawal . . .”
including “delusions” and “shaking.” Id. at 80–81. The Individual received an IV drip for
potassium and magnesium and remained in the hospital for two days. Id. at 24.
In the late spring or early summer of 2024, the Individual and his psychiatrist discussed therapy
options.7 Id. at 25. He testified that he started attending SMART Recovery group sessions “in
keeping with [the psychiatrist’s] care plan for [him].” Id. at 25–26; see also Ex. A at 2–12 (SMART
Recovery attendance records showing that he attended sessions on July 15, August 19, September
2, September 9, and September 16, 2024); Ex. D at 3 (SMART Recovery attendance records
showing that he attended sessions on September 23, October 3, November 7, and November 11,
2024).8 The Individual testified “group [sessions] ha[d] really helped with[ ] providing tools[,]”
including “strategies . . . and ways to recognize . . . when something might be a problem” or “how
to see it before it becomes a problem.” Tr. at 28. Other strategies he learned include (1) going into
situations where alcohol is present with a prior plan or strategy, (2) developing a hierarchy of
values to prioritize over alcohol, and (3) identifying triggers.9 Id. at 39–41. He further testified that
the other members provide advice and have made themselves available to meet outside of the
group setting to discuss and provide advice. Id. at 39. As a result of the SMART Recovery, he
testified to “ma[king] it through several holidays where alcohol was present and abstained.” Id. at
28.
The Individual submitted into the record a “Pledge to Abstain [from] Alcohol Misuse”:
I, [Individual’s name], wish to proudly and confidently state that I pledge to
continue to remain free from all alcohol abuse. Furthermore, I fully acknowledge,
understand, and embrace that any future involvement with alcohol or alcohol use
misconduct of the same will be grounds for revocation of my security clearance and
any national security eligibility.
7 While the Individual and his psychiatrist discussed individual therapy for his addiction, at the time of the hearing,
he had not yet attended. Id. at 41–42. He had also not participated in a substance abuse treatment program with a
licensed provider knowledgeable in the area of substance abuse but testified to planning to do so. Id. at 44–45. The
Individual testified that he had promised his Significant Other that he would contact her therapist’s office, who
employed addiction specialists, to start attending sessions after the hearing. Id. at 41–42.
8 The Individual estimates that he attended four or five other SMART Recovery sessions but had not obtained
attendance records for those sessions. Tr. at 38.
9 The Individual testified that his triggers include his isolation and social anxiety. Tr. at 41. He testified that his
medication and support of friends and family have helped in coping with these. Id.
- 6 -
Ex. B at 14. At the hearing, the Individual explained that the pledge meant that he would “no longer
use alcohol as a tool to help with [his] anxiety or . . . stress”; no longer “drink alone”; and “enjoy
[alcohol] responsibly . . . [,] meaning in limited quantities, in safe environments.” Tr. at 35–36.
When asked why the Individual continued to drink alcohol despite his addiction medication
eliminating positive feelings associated with consuming alcohol, the Individual testified that he
would “have to think about that” and was “not quite sure . . . .” Id. at 36. However, the Individual
shared, during the hearing, that his goal was “to get to abstinence” and that he had “not reached
the finish line of where [he] want[s] to be yet.” Id. at 37.
The Individual testified that his psychiatrist had “told [him] directly to not quit [alcohol] cold
turkey” and that they “were going to work to whittle this down.” Id. at 44; see also id. at 53
(Individual testifying that his psychiatrist never told him to stop drinking and that the psychiatrist
never indicated a date by which the Individual was to become sober). The Individual also quoted
his psychiatrist regarding his treatment being a “marathon, not a sprint.” Id. at 36. The Individual
indicated that he and his psychiatrist were “adjusting” the time frame for arriving to abstinence “as
[they] go.” Id. at 37.
Since his treatment with his psychiatrist, the Individual reported drinking “[a] lot less individually
. . . usually only with friends” and “try[ing] not to keep alcohol in [his] residence . . . .” Id. at 34.10
He estimated that he reduced his alcohol intake by two-thirds or more and that the frequency with
which he drinks falls mostly on weekends and includes maybe one or two weekdays. Id. The
Individual had not submitted any laboratory tests corroborating the reduction in his alcohol intake.
See id. at 44. The Individual admitted to drinking alcohol “probably eight days” before the hearing,
consuming approximately three drinks of whiskey. Id. at 34.
The Individual testified that the medication, the support of his friends and family, and the SMART
Recovery sessions and tools have assisted him in preventing a situation like the January 22, 2024,
incident from occurring again. Id. at 49–50. As an example, he indicated that his Significant Other
attended a SMART Recovery program for friends and family that provides them with tools in
assisting an individual experiencing addiction. Id. at 29. The Individual also testified that several
friends are aware of his struggles and have been encouraging. Id.
The Significant Other testified to meeting the Individual in 2019 and entering a relationship with
him in 2021. Id. at 75–76. The Significant Other observed that the Individual “drank a lot more
than [she] did, certainly” but had not “realize[d] it was an issue until[ ] that incident in January
[2024].” Id. at 77. She estimated that, prior to the January 2024 incident, he drank about every
night. Id. at 84. She became worried for the Individual immediately after he contacted her during
the January 22, 2024, incident. Id. at 77. (testifying that “[t]he way he had phrased it at the time .
. . he was trying to take his life”). As stated above, she assisted the Individual with identifying
treatment resources. Id. at 78–79. She also testified that she had known about the Individual’s
anxiety prior to the incident and observed that, since starting treatment, he had made progress in
coping with his anxiety. Id. at 80. She also noted that the Individual’s alcohol consumption had
decreased. Id. at 84–85 (describing that the Individual since the January 22, 2024, incident “tried
10 While the Individual “tr[ies] not to keep alcohol in [his] residence,” the Individual’s Significant Other estimated
that there had been a “couple of instances . . . in the last two[-]to[-]three weeks” that the Individual had been drinking
alone in his apartment based on her observation of a “bottle or can in his apartment.” Tr. at 34, 86–87.
- 7 -
a couple times to go completely cold turkey” for a week or two and then would “relapse and kind
of drink a little bit”). The Significant Other testified that she last saw the Individual intoxicated in
early November, less than a month before the hearing. Id. at 89. The Significant Other believes the
Individual can be trusted with access authorization and that his alcohol use has not impacted his
ability to hold a clearance. Id. at 82.
At the hearing, two friends (Friend 1 and Friend 2) testified on his behalf. Tr. at 56–64, 66–72.
Both Friend 1 and Friend 2 have known the Individual for years, having met him through his
Significant Other. Tr. at 57, 67. They both indicated they knew of the concerns raised in connection
with this hearing, in particular the January 22, 2024, incident and the Individual’s treatment for
alcohol use. Id. at 59, 67. Both had no concerns about the Individual’s alcohol use prior to the
Individual sharing with them the details of this proceeding. Id. at 63, 68, 70. Friend 1 testified to
observing the Individual drink socially every one-to-two months and to witnessing him drink one
or two drinks on such occasions. Id. at 62–63. Friend 2 testified that there was only one time where
he felt the Individual “maybe [ ] had consumed a little bit too much” based on the “slurring of his
words . . . .” Id. at 71. Friend 2 clarified that the Individual was not “a danger to himself or anyone
else.” Id. Friend 1 and Friend 2 indicated the Individual was an honest and trustworthy person. Id.
at 60–61, 68–69.
b. DOE Psychologist’s Report and Testimony
On the day after the January 22, 2024, incident, the Individual initially informed his supervisor
that he was taking vacation time because he was helping with a friend suffering a mental health
crisis. Ex. 6 at 23; Ex. 7 at 29; Ex. 8 at 39; see also Tr. at 19 (Individual testifying to taking vacation
time he had accrued). The Individually eventually told his supervisor the reason for taking annual
leave, and his supervisor thereafter informed the LSO on February 5, 2024. Ex. 6 at 23. On April
24, 2024, at the request of the LSO, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation conducted
by the DOE Psychologist. Ex. 8 at 35–57. The evaluation consisted of a clinical interview; a
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory 3rd Edition (MMPI-3); and a Phosphatidylethanol
(PEth)11 test, the results of which were interpreted by a consultant psychiatrist. Id. at 39–47. During
the clinical interview, the Individual recounted his history of anxiety—specifically in social
situations; his history of alcohol use; the events surrounding the January 22, 2024, incident; and
his subsequent treatment history with his psychiatrist. Id. at 39–40.
The results of the MMPI-3 were reported as follows:
[The Individual] completed the MMPI-3 in a candid and open fashion . . . . He did
acknowledge elevated levels of stress in the top 4% and worry in the top 7%.
Situational anxiety was in the top 6%. His main depression scale was within the
11 According to the psychiatrist consulted to interpret the PEth result:
PEth is not a normal body metabolite. PEth accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell
membrane. PEth reflects the amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28-30 days as red blood
cells degrade and enzymatic action removes PEth. PEth exceeding 20 ng/mL is evidence of
“moderate to heavy alcohol consumption.”
Ex. 8 at 46–47.
- 8 -
expected and average range. He is shy and socially avoidant with a negative outlook
on the future.
Id. at 40.
The Individual’s PEth result was positive at 622 ng/mL. Id. at 40–41, 46–48. The Report noted (1)
that “PEth exceeding 20 ng/mL is evidence of ‘moderate to heavy [ ] consumption’”; (2) that
“[r]esearch criteria indicates” that his PEth result “lies numerically between 5 drinks[ ] . . . and 7
drinks[ ] [per] day”—consistent with his self-reported consumption of alcohol; and (3) that “250
ng/mL or higher is the threshold to identify alcohol-dependent subjects needing detox treatment.”
Id. at 41.
In his Report, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual habitually or binge consumed
alcohol to the point of impairment. Id. at 41. The DOE Psychologist also concluded that the
Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR criteria for diagnoses of (1) Substance Use Disorder, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; (2) Major Depression; and (3) Generalized
Anxiety Disorder. Id. at 41–42. The DOE Psychologist found that Major Depression and
Generalized Anxiety Disorder (mood disorders) “could facilitate increased alcohol intake as a self-
medicating strategy.” Id. at 42.
The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual do the following to begin reforming his
alcohol use and eventually rehabilitate himself: (1) “[The Individual] should not drink alcohol
again”; (2) “He should participate in a substance abuse treatment program from a licensed provider
knowledgeable in this area of practice” and “should attend sessions weekly for a period of 16
weeks”; (3) “He should then attend maintenance/relapse prevention group therapy sessions at least
twice a month for three months and then monthly for the remainder of one year”; (4) “He should
attend support group meetings such as Alcoholics Anonymous, Rational Recovery or S[MART]
Recovery . . .”; and (5) “He should take medication as prescribed by his psychiatrist.” Id. at 41–
42. To address his mood disorders, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual (1)
“comply with medication as prescribed and attend appointments with his psychiatrist as directed
by the psychiatrist” and (2) “participate in therapy on a weekly basis individually with a licensed
therapist familiar with the diagnoses being treated.” Id. at 42.
During the hearing, the DOE Psychologist provided his expert testimony and opinion after hearing
the testimony of the Individual and other witnesses. Tr. at 91–119. He explained that he
recommended that the Individual stop drinking because (1) the Individual had “consumed alcohol
[at] a problematic level”; (2) the Individual “was depressed”; and (3) “[a]lcohol, while used as a
coping response, makes depression worse” since “[i]t’s a central nervous system depressant.” Id.
at 96. Because the Individual testified he continued to drink albeit at lessened levels, the DOE
Psychologist concluded that he had not complied with this recommendation. Id. at 97.
With respect to the Individual’s testimony on his psychiatrist’s plan, the DOE Psychologist
testified that he was “surprised that his psychiatrist, seven months later, still did not have a written
treatment plan in place . . . to decrease the alcohol use to zero, or . . . perhaps rare use of alcohol”
and that seven months “seemed liked an awfully long time to let it go on with no specific date in
place . . . .” Id. at 96. When asked if it was common to have a treatment plan that involved a gradual
decrease of alcohol over a long-term period like seven months, the DOE Psychologist stated that
he had “never seen that.” Id. at 97. On cross examination, the DOE Psychologist was asked whether
- 9 -
a treating clinician might recommend continued drinking to prevent relapse in the long term; the
DOE Psychologist opined that “[i]t seemed odd . . . that someone would prescribe continued
drinking as a way of avoiding relapse.” Id. at 109. The DOE Psychologist also opined that, if the
Individual medically detoxed at a hospital in July 2024, then “there would be no reason for him to
continue drinking and there would be no reason for a psychiatrist to recommend him to continue
drinking.” Id. at 118. The DOE Psychologist provided that even alcoholics who needed to be
“medically detoxed under medical supervision” would have their alcohol consumption decreased
“over days or weeks, not months.” Id. at 97.
The DOE Psychologist also explained that he recommended that the Individual attend a substance
abuse treatment program with a licensed provider knowledgeable in substance abuse treatment,
since unlicensed providers or those not specialized in substance abuse typically have less success
with patients with substance abuse issues. Id. at 98. He explained that a 16-week substance abuse
treatment program would maintain evidence of progress and difficulties throughout the treatment
process. Id. at 98. He also reiterated that he recommended aftercare for the remainder of the year
so that the Individual would “go through all the holidays, the birthdays, the sentimental dates,
[and] celebrations without having alcohol . . . .” Id. at 98–99. The DOE Psychologist further
explained that he recommended the substance abuse treatment program and aftercare in addition
to the Individual seeing a psychiatrist because psychiatrists only “generally provide medication
management services[,]” whereas therapists meet with patients for weekly sessions over 45-to-60-
minute periods. Id. at 99, 104. Regarding the Individual’s testimony that he had only discussed
therapy with his own psychiatrist, the DOE Psychologist again expressed he was “surprised” that
“there ha[d] [not] been a push for therapy . . . .” Id. at 100.
The DOE Psychologist explained that he had also recommended the Individual’s participation in
mutual support groups like SMART Recovery because it would provide a support network of
others who have first-hand experience with addiction. Id. at 101. The DOE Psychologist confirmed
that the Individual had substantially complied with this recommendation. Id. at 102. However, the
DOE Psychologist made clear that SMART Recovery and other mutual support groups were not
replacements for actual group therapy since “[t]here is no licensed person” or “therapy taking
place, as defined by state statutes.” Id. at 100.
Regarding his recommendation that the Individual comply with his medications as prescribed by
his psychiatrist, the DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual reported complying with the
medications prescribed to him. Id. at 102–03. However, he noted that no documentary evidence
corroborated this. Id.
The DOE Psychologist also explained that he recommended, in addition to taking medications as
prescribed, that the Individual attend therapy to address his mood disorders. Id. at 103. The DOE
Psychologist explained that therapists typically meet with patients on a weekly basis for 45-to-60
minutes. Id. at 104. The DOE Psychologist observed that the Individual had not specified the length
of his sessions with psychiatrist; that they only met every six weeks; and that the psychiatrist was
not “really someone who is there week to week, addressing and making progress on specific areas
and not documenting in a written treatment plan . . . .” Id. Ultimately, the DOE Psychologist opined
that the Individual had not complied with this recommendation. Id.
The DOE Psychologist opined that it was positive that the Individual appeared willing to take his
medication as prescribed, to continue seeing his psychiatrist, and to continue attending SMART
- 10 -
Recovery sessions. Id. at 105. However, the DOE Psychologist noted that, without corroborating
evidence of the recommendations of the Individual’s psychiatrist, much of the Individual’s
testimony “appear[ed] to be rationalization . . . , rather than a commitment to improve mental
health and abstinence.” Id. at 106. The DOE Psychologist also found that the “fact that [the
Individual] was intoxicated this month” meant “that there [were] still significant problems” and
“still significant need for intervention or treatment . . . .” Id. at 111. The DOE Psychologist gave a
“guarded” prognosis for the Individual, opined that the Individual had not demonstrated
rehabilitation or reformation from alcohol misuse, and observed that the Individual had not
“follow[ed] through with recommendations . . . made to improve his situation with the mood
disorders . . . .” Id. at 105–06.
V. ANALYSIS
a. Guideline G
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline G though the following
conditions:
a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
b) The individual acknowledges his maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence of
actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol consumption or abstinence in accordance
with treatment recommendations;
c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
I first must address the Individual’s testimony that his psychiatrist instructed him to not quit
alcohol “cold turkey” in stark contrast with the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation of
abstinence. The Individual expressed that he now drank significantly less, no longer drank alcohol
to cope with his mood disorders, and will not “abuse” alcohol. However, the Individual provided
no corroborating evidence—not even a written statement from his psychiatrist—that modified
alcohol consumption was in accordance with his psychiatrist’s treatment plan. The DOE
Psychologist also noted that various aspects of the Individual’s testimony regarding the
psychiatrist’s recommendations were “surprising”—in particular, that a treating clinician would
recommend that a patient wean off alcohol use over a seven-month period without a specific end
date in mind. Ultimately, I cannot credit the Individual’s self-serving hearsay that his psychiatrist
- 11 -
purportedly recommended that he continue with modified alcohol consumption despite his
substance use disorder.
Regarding mitigating condition (a), the Individual cannot demonstrate that the problematic alcohol
use giving rise to the security concern occurred so far in the past, infrequently, or under such
unusual circumstances. The January 22, 2024, incident precipitating his evaluation by the DOE
Psychologist occurred less than a year ago—which is not “so long ago.” Furthermore, the DOE
Psychologist recommended that he might demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation by abstaining
from alcohol use. The Individual admitted to drinking within eight days of the hearing. Even if I
were to credit that his psychiatrist recommended reduced alcohol use—which I do not—the
Individual’s Significant Other testified to witnessing him drink to the point of intoxication within
a month of the hearing.
I also cannot conclude that the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption occurred
infrequently. The Individual testified that his problematic alcohol consumption began during the
COVID-19 pandemic in around 2021, underwent a “gradual ramp” up into 2024—at which point,
he was drinking about half of a 750-mL bottle of 80-proof whiskey per day, most days per week.
While he and his Significant Other testified that he now drinks less, he continues to drink despite
the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations and provided no documentary evidence corroborating
this purported lessened drinking. Accordingly, I cannot find the problematic alcohol consumption
infrequent.
Last, I cannot conclude that his problematic alcohol consumption occurred under unusual
circumstances. The Individual indicated that his problematic alcohol usage typically occurred
when drinking alone in his apartment and as a response to his anxiety. Being alone in his apartment
is a rather ordinary circumstance, and he continues to drink alone in his apartment given his
Significant Other’s testimony that she observed a bottle or can in his apartment up to a few weeks
prior to the hearing. The Individual also drank in response to his mood disorders, triggered by
stressors. In particular, the Individual testified that work, not being able to see family over the
holidays, and social anxiety triggered the January 22, 2024, incident. While I am sympathetic to
his aforementioned struggles, I have no evidence demonstrating that these types of stressors
triggering his mood disorders and drinking were unusual. For the above reasons, mitigating
condition (a) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual has acknowledged his alcohol use was
problematic to an extent. However, the Individual continues drinking alcohol and signed a pledge
that to him means that he can continue drinking alcohol, in contravention of the recommendations
provided by the DOE Psychologist. The Individual testified that his treating psychiatrist had
recommended modified consumption; however, as stated before, he provided no corroborating
evidence, and I found this testimony unreliable. Accordingly, mitigating condition (b) does not
apply.
Regarding mitigating conditions (c) and (d), the Individual testified that he receives treatment from
his psychiatrist. However, I have no specific evidence that the Individual receives counseling or
treatment from a substance abuse treatment program. The DOE Psychologist explained the
importance of the Individual receiving specialized substance abuse treatment and that a typical
psychiatrist provides medication management rather than therapy. Even if I were to credit the
Individual’s testimony regarding his treatment with his psychiatrist—again, which I do not—the
- 12 -
Individual’s own testimony hardly supports that he has made satisfactory progress. I weigh heavily
that the Individual expressed that his goal was abstinence but that he was still drinking after seven
months with no projected date for achieving that goal. Furthermore, while the Individual has
expressed interest in finding a therapist specialized in substance abuse and enrolling in a substance
abuse treatment program, as of the date of the hearing, he had not actually done so. Accordingly,
mitigating condition (c) does not apply. Similarly, mitigating condition (d) does not apply, since I
have no evidence that the Individual has completed any treatment program. For the aforementioned
reasons, none of the mitigating conditions are applicable and the Individual has not resolved the
security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
b. Guideline I
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline I include:
(a) the identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) the individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) [a] recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government [indicates] that an individual’s
previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of
recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) the past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
and,
(e) there is no indication of a current problem.
Id. at ¶ 29.
Regarding mitigating conditions (a) and (b), the Individual has testified that he is medication
compliant, that he attends sessions every six weeks with his psychiatrist, and that he attends
SMART Recovery, which assists him with coping mechanisms and identifying triggers. However,
he has not put forth evidence, aside from self-serving hearsay, that this is in fact the treatment plan
of his psychiatrist. I also lack a prognosis from his psychiatrist. The record does include the DOE
Psychologist’s treatment plan, which recommended therapy for his mood disorders. Because the
Individual admitted he had not yet started therapy, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the
Individual had not satisfied his recommendations with respect to his mood disorders. Based on this
record—lacking (1) at the very least documentation of the psychiatrist’s treatment plan, (2) a
prognosis from his psychiatrist, and (3) attendance in therapy as recommended by the DOE
Psychologist’s treatment plan—I cannot find that mitigating conditions (a) or (b) are satisfied.
Regarding mitigating condition (c), I have no testimony from a duly qualified mental health
professional that the Individual has a condition in control or in remission with a low probability of
- 13 -
recurrence or exacerbation. As stated above, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual
had not demonstrated reformation. Mitigating condition (c) does not apply.
Regarding mitigating conditions (d) and (e), there is no dispute that the Individual has been
diagnosed with mood disorders for which he is currently receiving treatment from his psychiatrist.
However, as stated above, the Individual has not followed through on the recommendations of the
DOE Psychologist to improve his mood disorders, specifically attending therapy. Furthermore, the
DOE Psychologist explained that his mood disorders could facilitate increased drinking and that
alcohol, as a depressant, would exacerbate his mood disorders. Regardless, the Individual
continued consuming alcohol up until eight days before the hearing. Thus, despite the Individual’s
treatment from his psychiatrist, his behavior poses a risk of exacerbating his mood disorders such
that they could impair his judgment and reliability. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the
conditions were “temporary” or not “current.” Mitigating conditions (d) and (e) do not apply.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines G and I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, both favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the
hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Janet R. H. Fishman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals