PSH-24-0170

*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: August 8, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0170
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 24, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, 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.”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 granted.
I. Background
The Individual was employed with a DOE contractor in 2022 in a position that required him to
obtain a Human Reliability Program (HRP) certification.2 Exhibit (Ex.) 6 at 29; Ex. 5 at 21.3 At
the time the Individual was seeking his HRP certification, he underwent a psychological
evaluation. Ex. 6 at 34. The psychologist who conducted the evaluation did not recommend the
Individual for an HRP certification, as the Individual had “reported consumption of up to [ten]
beers” at one time. Id. As the Individual was not approved for HRP certification, the contractor
terminated the Individual’s employment. Id. at 29–30; Ex. 5 at 21. The Individual subsequently
sought employment with a different DOE contractor that required that he obtain a security
clearance. Because the Individual had not been approved for an HRP certification in 2022, 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 Human Reliability Program is a security and safety reliability program designed to ensure that individuals who
occupy positions affording access to certain materials, nuclear explosive devices, facilities, and programs meet the
highest standards of reliability and physical and mental suitability. See 10 C.F.R. § 712.1.
3 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.
2
Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI),
which the Individual submitted in April 2024. Ex. 5. As questions regarding his alcohol
consumption remained, the Individual was asked to see a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE
Psychologist) for a psychological evaluation. Ex. 6. The Individual underwent the psychological
evaluation in May 2024, for which he submitted to a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test.4 Id. at 37.
The DOE Psychologist compiled and issued a report (the Report) of his findings in May 2024, in
which he concluded that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use
Disorder (AUD), as set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth
Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), and that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 39. The DOE Psychologist specifically indicated
that, with regard to the AUD diagnosis, there is “the potential for impaired judgment, especially .
. . when [the Individual is] experiencing [Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)] episodes.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist also opined that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for PTSD,
which “can impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at 40.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information that created
a substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and I
(Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter
informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve
the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his friend and that of his current
roommate. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0170 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”).
The Individual also submitted six exhibits, marked Exhibits A through F. The DOE Counsel
submitted eight exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 8 and presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
A. Guideline G
Under Guideline G, “[e]xcessive 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. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern is “diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(d). Under
4 PEth is only present in the body “when ethyl alcohol [that is] consumed reacts with a compound in the red blood cell
membrane.” Ex. 6 at 37. PEth builds in the red blood cells “with repeated drinking episodes[,]” and can “still be
detected in the blood for about [twenty-eight] days after alcohol consumption has ceased.” Id. Results of 20 ng/mL
and over indicate “moderate to heavy” alcohol consumption. Id.
3
Guideline G, the LSO alleged that the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD,
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that the PEth test that was
administered in conjunction with the evaluation was positive for alcohol at 24 ng/mL, indicating
“moderate to heavy” use.5 Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
B. Guideline I
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b). Under Guideline I, the LSO alleged that the DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with PTSD, “which is a condition that can impair his
judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.” Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline
I is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
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 so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
In his April 2024 LOI response, the Individual indicated that his “current pattern of alcohol
consumption” consists of “[two to three] beers very occasionally, maybe once or twice a month[,]”
and that this pattern of consumption began in 2018. Ex. 5 at 22. He stated that he last consumed
alcohol about seven days prior to the completion of the LOI, when he consumed four beers over
5 The PEth test result does not constitute a security concern in and of itself. Rather, the test result is being presented
in support of the stated security concern, the AUD diagnosis.
4
the span of four hours. Id. He indicated that he could not remember the last time he was intoxicated,
as it had “been a very long time,” but surmised that he may have consumed “[six to eight] beers in
about [three to four] hours” on the last occasion of intoxication. Id. at 23. The Individual stated
that he consumes alcohol to intoxication about “once or twice a year.” Id. In the 2024 LOI
response, the Individual stated that he “had a bit of a problem with alcohol consumption” following
the completion of his service with the armed forces around 2011 or 2012, as he was using alcohol
to self-medicate.6 Id. He indicated that his consumption never interfered with his professional life,
but did negatively impact personal life. Id. He “decided [that he] needed to cut back[,]” and
accordingly, he reduced his alcohol consumption.7 Id. At the time he signed and submitted the
2024 LOI response, he did not feel that he had a problem with alcohol. Id. at 24.
Regarding his prior alcohol consumption, the DOE Psychologist noted in the Report that “during
the course of the psychological evaluation, [the Individual] frequently referenced the two years
after his discharge from the military, describing it as the peak of his alcohol consumption.” Ex. 6
at 31. However, the DOE Psychologist also noted that regarding this period, the Individual “never
elaborated or provided specifics other than his consuming to intoxication on a very frequent basis.”
Id. The Individual did state that he consumed alcohol “to temporarily alleviate the distress that
came from his service related, untreated [PTSD,]” which he described as having been “serious and
sometimes debilitating.” Id. at 33.
The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that his current pattern of alcohol consumption consists
of “a ‘tiny glass of scotch every other day.’” Id. When the DOE Psychologist pressed the matter
of the Individual’s current alcohol consumption, the Individual “acknowledged that he
occasionally drinks beer as well.” Id. at 32. The Individual indicated that he consumes “an
unspecified number of beers . . . on one to three occasions per year[,]”8 and further, the Individual
admitted that he consumed approximately three to four twelve-ounce beers the day prior to the
psychological evaluation. Id. When the DOE Psychologist asked the Individual whether he has
ever been unable to stop drinking once he has started drinking, the Individual indicated that such
circumstances existed “a long time ago[,]” following his discharge from the armed forces. Id.
However, the Individual indicated that as it currently stands, he is able to stop consuming alcohol
“at any point he wishes[.]” Id. The Individual also told the DOE Psychologist that he must consume
“six to eight beers” over the span of three to four hours to become intoxicated, and that he probably
consumes this much alcohol “once or twice a year.” Id. at 32–33. When asked by the DOE
Psychologist what his intentions were regarding his future alcohol consumption, the Individual
indicated that he does not “see . . . a problem” with his current use. Id. at 31.
6 The Individual testified that this practice was regretful, but that he was attempting to “get some sleep” and to “get
past things.” Tr. at 41. He stated that it was not uncommon for him to consume as many as ten beers in one sitting, as
he had “a problem.” Id. at 57.
7 The Individual testified that he began reducing his alcohol consumption in the 2014 time period, after “waking up
one day and just thinking to [himself], this is not helping.” Tr. at 41, 65. He believes that he changed his relationship
with alcohol in either 2016 or 2017, when he made “drastic cutbacks” in his consumption, resulting in his current
levels of consumption. Id. at 41, 66–67.
8 The Report notes that the Individual “would not provide a firm number or defined range” with regard to the number
of beers consumed in one sitting. Ex. 6 at 32.
5
As part of the psychological evaluation, the Individual submitted to a PEth test, the result of which
was 24 ng/mL. Id. at 37. Based on this value, the DOE Psychologist stated in the Report that
although the Individual’s result is not significantly above the threshold of 20 ng/mL, it shows that
the Individual’s “alcohol consumption is most likely greater than he realizes or acknowledges.”9
Id. at 38. The DOE Psychologist observed that the Individual has not pursued any kind of
“rehabilitation plan” and that the Individual’s “alcohol consumption has taken on an element of
self-medication once again, even though [the Individual] is likely to deny that.” Id. at 40.
In determining which of the diagnostic criteria for AUD the Individual met, the DOE Psychologist
concluded that within a twelve-month period, the Individual drank alcohol “in larger amounts or
over a longer period than was intended[,]” and that he experienced either a “[c]raving[] or a strong
desire to use alcohol.” Id. The DOE Psychologist also determined that the Individual “[c]ontinued
alcohol use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal problems.” Id. at 41; see
also id. at 33 (indicating that the Individual admitted during the clinical interview that alcohol had
“a negative impact on his marriage” and that he had “yell[ed]” and been “verbally abusive”
towards his spouse while intoxicated).
With regard to his PTSD diagnosis, the Individual experienced higher levels of stress while
overseas with the armed forces in “combat situations” and while protecting a high ranking official.
Id. at 34. His initial PTSD symptoms, for which he had used alcohol to self-medicate, included
“night terrors, depression, and anger issues,” as well as “suicidal ideation on an occasion[.]” Id.
He was diagnosed with PTSD in 2014 after presenting to the hospital following a domestic dispute.
Tr. at 61. He denied receiving an AUD diagnosis at that time. Id. Although he received a PTSD
diagnosis in 2014, he did not take any immediate or contemporaneous action to address his PTSD
symptoms. Id.; Ex. 6 at 34. In approximately 2017, the Individual sought the services of a therapist
to manage his PTSD symptoms through the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA).10 Tr. at
47–48, 62; Ex. 6 at 34. He indicated that he met with this therapist once per week for individual
counseling. Tr. at 47, 62. He stopped seeing this therapist in either 2018 or 2019 and has not
received treatment for his PTSD since then. Id. at 47–48, 63–64. Although he does not take
prescription medication to manage his PTSD symptoms, he was given a “100%” disability
designation by the VA specifically due to his PTSD. Id.; Ex. 6 at 34. Despite this, he feels that he
is able to manage his PTSD symptoms at this point in time, and accordingly, does not attend
therapy or take medication. Tr. at 47–49, 67–69; Ex. 6 at 34–35. The Individual manages his
symptoms by either removing himself from a distressing situation or breathing through it.11 Tr. at
68; Ex. 6 at 34–35. The Individual testified that his symptoms remain stable, but “maybe once a
month[,]” he will experience a nightmare regarding “the events that took place” while he was
stationed overseas. Tr. at 55–56; Ex. 6 at 35. He testified that he would reach back out to the VA
9 The interpretation of the PEth test result was provided by a consulting psychiatrist, who indicated that said result is
consistent with the amount of alcohol the Individual reported drinking, “a ‘tiny glass of scotch every other day’ and .
. . sometimes . . . [three or four twelve]-ounce locally produced beers.” Ex. 6 at 37.
10 At the hearing, the Individual could not recall how much alcohol he reported consuming to the VA therapist, and
when asked whether his therapist recommended alcohol treatment, the Individual simply responded, “[n]o.” Tr. at 41,
43–44.
11 The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he also practices a specific type of martial arts, which “has been most
helpful in alleviating [his] symptoms.” Ex. 6 at 34.
6
for further assistance in the event his PTSD symptoms worsen, and that he would “never, never
turn to alcohol to fix that.” Tr. at 56.
Regarding the Individual’s AUD diagnosis, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the
Individual complete a six-to-eight-week intensive outpatient program (IOP) that offers alcohol
education and a group therapy component. Ex. 6 at 40. Further, he recommended that the
Individual should remain abstinent from alcohol for a “full year,” and that to prove he has been
abstinent, he should submit to “monthly PEth testing.” Id. If the Individual produces negative PEth
tests for the first four or five months, the Individual may opt to submit to PEth tests every six
weeks. Id. Further, the Individual should “consider[]” attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or
a similar group upon completion of the IOP. Id.
The DOE Psychologist also recommended that the Individual “seek concurrent assistance
regarding both his alcohol usage and his episodic, but intensive struggles with PTSD symptoms[.]”
Id. at 40. The Individual “should initiate individual therapy that focuses on coping mechanisms,
the latest in cognitive/behavioral and other such therapy designed to enhance the development of
means for handling PTSD symptoms[.]” Id. However, the DOE Psychologist recognized that “[i]t
is unlikely that the counseling alone will provide adequate care for [the Individual] without
concurrent involvement in a program directed toward helping him with his alcohol issues[.]” Id.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he did not tell the DOE Psychologist that he drinks
scotch every other day, and that he likely told the DOE Psychologist that he consumes a small
glass of scotch every other month. Tr. at 39–40, 53–54. He testified that he has been consuming
about the same amount of alcohol since 2017, as he “might have a beer or two” over the weekend
and a “little glass of scotch” every other month. Id. at 41–42. He also indicated that the last time
he drank any alcohol was a month prior to the hearing, when he consumed one beer at a local
brewery. Id. at 43. The Individual acknowledged that he learned that he did not receive his HRP
certification because of, among other things, his alcohol consumption. Id. at 46. Further, since
receiving the Report, he has not made it a goal to stop consuming alcohol, and he has not submitted
to any PEth testing outside of the one completed in conjunction with the psychological evaluation.
Id. at 45. He has not attended any AA meetings or similar groups, and he has not participated in
any alcohol counseling or education. Id. He reiterated at the hearing that he does not feel that he
has “a problem,” and for that reason, he feels that the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations are
not appropriate for him. Id.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that because he could not ignore the reason why
the Individual did not receive his HRP certification, he asked the Individual to undergo a PEth test.
Id. at 76. Because the result came back positive for alcohol, and because the Individual had a
history of consuming alcohol to manage his PTSD symptoms, he made recommendations
pertaining to alcohol treatment as a preventative and/or corrective measure. Id. Although the DOE
Psychologist “found [the Individual] very convincing,” the Individual could not “undo the fact that
he had a positive PEth test,” which indicated “fairly regular consumption of alcohol[.]” Id. at 77,
79. He did not find that the Individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation at the time of the hearing. Id. at 78.
7
The DOE Psychologist also observed that the Individual has a 100% disability designation, and
that “nobody else has agreed that those [PTSD] symptoms have totally gone away or dissipated.”
Id. He indicated that “there are tools and techniques and new modalities of advanced behavioral
cognitive . . . therapies that can make [PTSD symptoms] better[,]” even when the Individual is
suffering only “one day a month[.]” Id. at 86. The DOE Psychologist felt that the Individual is
“giving up the opportunity to get better.” Id. He also felt that although the Individual’s PTSD
symptoms have improved from the past and are more under control, “[there is] more that could be
done[,]” which “could reduce his inclination to use alcohol at a future time when he really hits a
high stress level.” Id. at 86–87.
The Individual’s friend of seven years indicated in his testimony that he has seen the Individual
consume approximately “one to two drinks” in the last “couple of months.” Id. at 17, 19–20. He
stated his certainty that the Individual does not consume alcohol on a weekly, or even monthly
basis, but admitted that he last visited the Individual’s home “three or four” months prior to the
hearing. Id. at 20. Although he has discussed eliminating alcohol consumption with the Individual,
that discussion was in the context of creating healthy habits in general, and not because the
Individual’s alcohol consumption had become a problem. Id. at 23, 26. He testified that he believes
the Individual is reliable, trustworthy, and honest. Id. at 26–27.
The Individual’s roommate, who has known the Individual for five years and has lived with him
for three, stated that the last time he saw the Individual consume alcohol was “over a year” ago, as
he “hardly ever see[s the Individual] drink.” Id. at 30–32, 34–35. Further, he has “never seen [the
Individual] drink any hard liquor[.]” Id. at 33. The Individual’s roommate keeps alcohol in the
home they share and has never had any “issues” with any “missing” alcohol. Id. 32. While he has
some “beer in the fridge[,]” they do have some “bottles of stuff . . . in the back of [a] cabinet” that
he has never touched. Id. at 35. He neither knows to whom those bottles belong nor what they are.
Id. Ultimately, he believes that the Individual has an outstanding reputation for honesty,
trustworthiness, and reliability. Id. at 35–36.
Finally, the Individual submitted a number of letters penned by the Individual’s friends in support
of his character. Several stated that they have never seen the Individual drunk or drink to excess.
Ex. A; Ex. E; Ex. F. One person indicated in his letter that in the four years he has known the
Individual, he has only “seen him drunk, at maximum, twice.” Ex. B. Another individual wrote
that he can “attest to [the Individual’s] exceptional level of responsibility and integrity.” Ex. C. He
further stated that the Individual “consistently demonstrates sound judgment and self-control when
it comes to alcohol consumption[.]” Id. He further stated that the Individual’s concern for others,
his reliability, and sense of responsibility are all things that he has “observed on numerous
occasions.” Id. One person stated his belief that the Individual “has done the necessary work to
manage and overcome those challenges” related to his PTSD. Ex. D. He also stated that he has
seen the Individual drink “at most, two or three beers[,]” and stated that the Individual “does not
keep alcohol in his home[.]” Id. Others indicated in their letters that they have never witnessed the
Individual experience any PTSD symptoms. Ex. A; Ex. D; Ex. E; Ex. F.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
8
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(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.
The Individual’s primary concern at the hearing centered around his belief that he had not told the
DOE Psychologist that he consumes a small glass of scotch every other day, and therefore, the
DOE Psychologist’s conclusions and recommendations were not appropriate. However, the
nuances of how much the Individual drinks are not so material, as the issue at hand is not whether
the Individual habitually or binge consumes alcohol, but rather, the fact that the DOE Psychologist
diagnosed him with AUD, in large part due to his history. The Individual admitted that he was
self-medicating with alcohol to manage his PTSD symptoms following his discharge from the
armed forces. And he admitted that his problematic consumption spanned years. This is reflected
throughout the record. The Individual testified that he came to the realization that his consumption
was problematic in 2014 and that he reduced his consumption to reach his current levels of
consumption in approximately 2017. Supra note 7. Although the Individual knew that he was
consuming alcohol to self-medicate his underlying and persistent PTSD symptoms, there is no
evidence in the record that the Individual stopped consuming alcohol to engage in any meaningful
period of abstinence following the realization that his alcohol consumption was not serving him.
This is great cause for concern, because there is no indication in the record that what the Individual
is doing now has treated or effectively remedied his problematic alcohol consumption. In fact, the
evidence that I do have in the record indicates that the Individual’s issues with alcohol have
persisted into the present; hence, the AUD diagnosis rendered by the DOE Psychologist and his
conclusion at the hearing that the Individual has not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. The Individual bears the burden of proof to establish that granting him access
authorization will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest. I find that the Individual’s assertions that he does not have a problem with alcohol
9
are insufficient to overcome the concerns raised by the DOE Psychologist’s opinion in the absence
of any treatment and/or abstinence to remedy his AUD and achieve remission.
With regard to mitigating factor (a), because the Individual continues to consume alcohol, I cannot
conclude that enough time has passed. Further, his problematic alcohol consumption took place
over the span of years and in the context of his unmanaged PTSD. As the Individual is not currently
treating his PTSD via the assistance of a trained professional, I cannot conclude that the
problematic consumption was infrequent or took place under unusual circumstances that are no
longer present. The Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concerns under mitigating factor
(a).
The Individual has failed to acknowledge that his alcohol use is maladaptive, and he has failed to
provide any evidence of actions taken to overcome the problem. Further, the Individual has not
remained abstinent pursuant to the recommendations provided by the DOE Psychologist.
Accordingly, the Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor
(b).
I have no information before me that the Individual is currently receiving alcohol-related treatment
through a program or that he has in the past. Accordingly, mitigating factors (c) and (d) are not
applicable.
For the aforementioned reasons, I conclude that the Individual has not resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
B. Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that 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 amendable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government 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;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
10
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
I understand that the Individual feels that his PTSD symptoms are under control, and accordingly,
he feels that he is not in any need of therapy or medication. I also understand that the Individual
feels that he can control his PTSD symptoms with breathing techniques or by removing himself
from upsetting circumstances. However, the record indicates that the Individual continues to suffer
from nightmares on a monthly basis because of his PTSD. Accordingly, the fact that the Individual
is currently suffering from a PTSD symptom, the nightmares, but does not feel it necessary to seek
treatment, causes me concern. The Individual believes these symptoms are mild, but without some
ongoing treatment to address what is an ongoing mental illness, I have no assurance that his
symptoms will not worsen quickly or considerably at any point in the future. Additionally, the
Individual acknowledged the fact that he would use alcohol to self-medicate and manage his PTSD
symptoms. As the Individual is not receiving any treatment for his PTSD or alcohol consumption,
I have no firm or concrete assurance that the Individual will not resume his previous practice of
self-medicating with alcohol should his symptoms worsen despite his intentions not to do so. There
is no safeguard, like therapy or medication, to prevent a potential worsening of symptoms, thus,
increasing the possibility of unreliable behavior.
As the Individual has indicated that he currently suffers from PTSD, an ongoing diagnosis, and at
least one associated symptom which indicates that his PTSD remains a problem, the Individual
has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factors (d) and (e).
As the Individual is not receiving treatment or counseling, mitigating factors (a) and (b) are not
applicable. I also do not have an opinion from any medical professional that the Individual’s PTSD
is under control or in remission. Mitigating factor (c) is not applicable.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline I.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and I of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the Guideline G and Guideline I concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly,
the Individual has not demonstrated that granting his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be granted. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals