PSH-24-0193

*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: September 17, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-24-0193
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 7, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be granted.
I. Background
In August 2023, the Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP)
in connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 8.2 When asked in the QNSP
whether he had “failed to file or pay Federal, state, or other taxes when required by law or
ordinance” in the last seven years, the Individual marked “yes.” Id. at 114. He indicated that due
to a “[w]orkplace injury,” confusion over how to file a 1099 tax form for reporting income, and
the passing of the filing deadline, he failed to file his federal income taxes for years 2017 and 2018.
Id. at 114–15. He did not indicate that he owed an outstanding amount in unpaid income taxes for
the aforementioned tax years. Id.
As part of the investigation process, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview
(ESI), which was conducted by an investigator in November 2023. Ex. 9 at 180. The Individual
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.
2
confirmed for the investigator that he failed to file his federal income taxes for tax years 2017 and
2018, but he stated his intention to file his taxes in the future. Id. at 183.
The Individual also told the investigator that in 2022, he “took [two] weeks off from work and
began drinking heavily,” after his girlfriend left him. Id. at 182. The Individual stated that “he
consumed 750 milliliter[s] of alcohol on a daily basis.” Id. He ultimately concluded that his alcohol
consumption had become a problem, and accordingly, he enrolled in an outpatient treatment
program (OP). Id. The Individual told the investigator that to the best of his knowledge, he had not
been “diagnosed with any conditions . . . includ[ing] alcohol dependency.” Id. At the time of the
November 2023 ESI, the Individual’s reported alcohol consumption consisted of approximately
two to three beers, two to three nights per week. Id. He also told the investigator that “he gets
intoxicated once a week when he consumes [three] to [four] cocktails at home or” at a bar. Id. The
Individual indicated that he “has no plans to stop drinking alcohol[,]” but did state that he intends
to reduce his overall consumption. Id.
Following the ESI, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual signed and submitted in May 2024. Ex. 5. The Individual
revealed in the LOI response that he still had not filed his federal income taxes for tax years 2017
and 2018, that he also failed to file his state income taxes for the aforementioned years, and that
he owed approximately $545.38 to the IRS. Id. at 32. The Individual also noted that he owed
approximately $1,116.15 in state income taxes for tax year 2022, and that he intended to enter a
payment plan to avoid any garnishment of his income by the state tax authority. Id. at 33.
As questions still remained regarding the Individual’s alcohol consumption, the Individual was
asked to see a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for a psychological evaluation,
which was conducted in June 2024. Ex. 6. The Individual submitted to a Phosphatidylethanol
(PEth) test in connection with the evaluation, which yielded a result of 1060 ng/mL.3 Id. at 53. The
DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report) of her findings and conclusions in early July 2024.
Id. In the Report, the DOE Psychologist stated that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a
diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, as outlined in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders-Fifth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Id. at 54. She went on to
indicate that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
Finally, she also determined that the Individual “has clinically significant anxiety with poor
emotional regulation and distress tolerance, which exacerbates his excessive alcohol use leading
to impaired judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.” Id.
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 F (Financial Considerations), G (Alcohol
Consumption), and I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The
3 “PEth can only be detected when consumed ethyl alcohol reacts with a compound in the Red Blood Cell Membrane
(RBC).” Ex. 6 at 53. PEth accumulates in the RBC “with repeated drinking episodes” and can “be detected in the
blood for about [twenty-eight] days after alcohol consumption has ceased.” Id. A “cutoff” of 20 ng/mL indicates
“moderate to heavy” alcohol consumption. Id.
3
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 a friend, a former foreman, and his
current workplace lead. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0193 (hereinafter cited
as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted five exhibits, marked Exhibits A through E. The DOE
Counsel submitted nine exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 9 and presented the testimony of
the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
Guideline F
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE raised security concerns under Guideline F of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Guideline F provides that failure to live within one’s means, satisfy debts, and meet financial
obligations “may indicate poor self-control, lack of judgment, or unwillingness to abide by rules
and regulations, all of which can raise questions about an individual’s reliability, trustworthiness,
and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 18. Among
those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise disqualifying security
concerns is the “failure to file . . . annual Federal, state, or local income tax returns or failure to
pay Federal, state, or local income tax as required[.]” Id. at ¶ 19(f). Under Guideline F, the LSO
alleged that the Individual failed to file his federal and state income taxes for tax years 2017 and
2018. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also alleged that the Individual owes approximately $545.38 to the IRS
for tax year 2022, and $1,116.15 to the state tax authority for tax year 2022. Id. The LSO’s
invocation of Guideline F is justified.
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
Guideline G, the LSO alleged that the Individual’s PEth test results indicated that the Individual
“consumed alcohol heavily and frequently,” and further, that the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the
Individual with AUD, Severe, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.4 Ex. 1
at 5–6. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
Guideline I
4 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
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 concluded in the Report that the Individual “has clinically significant anxiety with
poor emotional regulation and distress tolerance, which exacerbates his excessive alcohol use,
leading to impaired judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.” Ex. 1 at 6. 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
Regarding his past alcohol consumption, the Individual began consuming alcohol “at a problematic
level around the age of [nineteen].” Tr. at 70–71. When his problematic consumption began, the
Individual was drinking about seventy drinks per week, averaging about ten to twelve drinks per
sitting. Id. at 71–72. This rate of consumption lasted for about one year. Id. at 72. After that one
year, his consumption reduced. Id. He indicated in the LOI response and in his testimony that
“beginning in [March] 2020 with the Covid[-19] [p]andemic until 2023[,]” he “drank more
heavily” and on a daily basis. Ex. 5 at 35; Tr. at 73. He indicated that during this period, he would
consume “[t]hree to five drinks per occasion[,]” and he would drink to intoxication approximately
“[t]wice per week.” Ex. 5 at 35. He stated in his LOI response that his alcohol consumption was
at its heaviest from January 2022 to March 2023, when he would drink liquor on a daily basis and
drink to intoxication “[m]ultiple times per week.” Id. at 36. The Individual told the DOE
Psychologist that when his consumption increased, he was consuming more alcohol than he
5
intended, that he had “built up a tolerance[,]” and that he had “spent a great deal of time drinking
and recovering from the effects” of alcohol. Ex. 6 at 50. The Individual “experienced withdrawal
symptoms” and “tried multiple times to stop drinking altogether[,]” but was ultimately
unsuccessful. Id. The Individual could not remain abstinent for longer than one month at a time
and continued to drink despite receiving medical advice urging him to stop drinking alcohol. Id.;
Tr. at 100. The Individual also indicated in the LOI response that he last consumed to intoxication
a week prior to the submission of the LOI response, when he consumed seven drinks. Ex. 5 at 34,
36–37.
The Individual sought treatment via an OP for his alcohol consumption and “anger, anxiety, and
depression[,]” in October 2022, and received individual counseling in the OP continuously through
the date of the hearing. Ex. 5 at 38; Ex. 6 at 50; Ex. A at 1. Although it was recommended that he
seek treatment in February 2022, he did not start treatment until October 2022, after his girlfriend
left him and “after an increase in depressive symptoms, including drinking[.]” Ex. at 6 at 50; Tr.
at 80, 99. The OP consists of one-on-one counseling sessions with two different providers. Tr. at
80. The Individual also attended weekly group counseling sessions for between at least six months
and one year5. Ex. 5 at 39; Tr. at 80, 106; Ex. A at 1. The one-on-one counseling sessions were
initially biweekly. Tr. at 80; Ex. 5 at 42; Ex. A at 1; Ex. B at 1. These one-on-one sessions are
designed to focus on cognitive behavioral therapy, grief counseling, the Individual’s alcohol
consumption, and techniques for handling difficult interactions.6 Tr. at 81, 84–85. Group
counseling “focused on emotional regulation and distress tolerance skills[,] as well as chemical
dependency treatment[,]” which benefitted the Individual, as “intensely distressing emotions
triggered excessive drinking” in the Individual. Ex. 6 at 50. Although the Individual has received
alcohol education through the OP, the Individual “remained ambivalent about both abstinence and
harm reduction[.]” Id. The Individual denied ever receiving an alcohol or substance related
diagnosis but admitted that he had taken medication specifically for his alcohol consumption from
November 2022 to March 2023.7 Ex. 5 at 39; Tr. at 81–82. He admitted to the DOE Psychologist
that one of his one-on-one providers had previously urged him to stop consuming alcohol. Ex. 6
5 The Individual provided inconsistent accounts of the timeline of his treatment. As stated above, the Individual began
group sessions, via the OP, in October 2022. The Report notes that at the time of the psychological evaluation in June
2024, the Individual “was still attending the chemical dependency support group but was going less frequently, down
from once a week to once a month currently.” Ex. 6 at 52.
6 The Individual testified that his one-on-one counseling also helps him work through his depression-related issues.
Tr. at 90–91. He indicated that he was prescribed medication for his anxiety and/or sadness, but he chose not to take
it, as he felt that the amount of time he was required to take the medication was “way too much commitment for
[him].” Id. at 91–92. Also, he feels that his symptoms have improved. Id. at 92. He also attended all permitted sessions
with an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) counselor for the purpose of discussing depression. Tr. at 110. The
Individual reported that he found the EAP sessions to be helpful but could not remember when he attended. Id. at 110–
11.
7 Although his cravings were reduced, the Individual continued to consume alcohol while taking this medication,
averaging “four to six” drinks per week. Ex. 6 at 50; Tr. at 82. He also stopped taking medication for his alcohol
consumption because “[i]t did not seem as effective as [he] wanted it to be.” Tr. at 82–83, 101; Ex. 6 at 52. He denied
receiving any instruction to stop drinking while on this medication. Tr. at 100.
6
at 51. He also told the DOE Psychologist that his current diagnosis is Major Depressive Disorder,
Severe, in Full Remission.8 Id. at 52.
The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, and noted that the Individual
stated during the clinical evaluation that “he has a drinking problem these days.” Id. at 52. He
voiced his desire to reduce his overall alcohol consumption, and his intention to stop consuming
alcohol for one month to “see how it goes.” Id. At the time of the psychological evaluation, the
Individual was attending “chemical dependency support group” sessions once a month. Id. The
Individual explained that “listening to people talk about their problems with alcohol made him
want to drink more.” Id. This feeling was replicated when he attended several Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings. Id. at 53; Tr. at 108–09. He did, however, complete Step Three of
AA’s Twelve Steps without the assistance of a sponsor. Tr. at 109.
The DOE Psychologist indicated that in order for the Individual to show adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation, he should “enter an inpatient chemical dependency treatment
program with the goal of” abstaining from alcohol. Ex. 6 at 55. Because of the amount of alcohol
the Individual is consuming, “he will likely need supervised detoxification to prevent the serious
adverse effects of alcohol withdrawal.” Id. The inpatient chemical dependency treatment should
last three months, and upon his completion of the program, he should enter an intensive outpatient
treatment program (IOP) for “six to nine months.” Id. The Individual should also remain abstinent
from alcohol for a minimum of twelve months, and his abstinence should be evidenced by negative
monthly PEth tests.9 Id.
Finally, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual “has clinically significant anxiety
with poor emotional regulation and distress tolerance, which exacerbates his excessive alcohol use
leading to impaired judgment, stability, reliability and trustworthiness.”10 Id. at 55. She opined that
the Individual would glean some benefit from “psychotherapeutic treatment to build mindfulness,
emotional regulation, and distress tolerance skills integrated with the above-recommended
chemical dependency treatment.” Id.
Testimony from the Individual began with information pertaining to his financial state. The
Individual submitted an IRS tax transcript for tax year 2022, which indicates that in late August
2024, the Individual made a payment of $571.06 to the IRS, bringing his outstanding account
balance to $0. Ex. E at 2. The Individual also submitted a June 2024 letter indicating that the state
tax authority accepted the Individual’s request for an installment agreement pursuant to which he
is to pay $50 monthly to resolve the outstanding amount he owes in state income taxes. Ex. C.
According to the document, the first electronic transfer was scheduled for August 2024. Id. The
8 In his May 2024 LOI response, the Individual indicated that his symptoms include “[d]epressive thoughts” and “lack
of motivation,” and that he experiences these symptoms twice a week on average. Ex. 5 at 42. He submitted a January
2025 letter from one of his one-on-one providers, which indicates that “since starting treatment[,]” the Individual is
“no longer indicating significant symptoms of depression and anxiety.” Ex. A at 1.
9 The DOE Psychologist observed that individuals with alcohol use at the level of the Individual’s should endeavor to
remain abstinent for the rest of their lives. Ex. 6 at 55.
10 At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that she was not entirely sure whether the anxiety disorder was
alcohol-induced, or if it was some “other specified anxiety disorder[.]” Tr. at 125.
7
Individual testified that he is making the agreed-upon payments and is now paying more than the
agreed-upon amount every month. Tr. at 68–69. Regarding the outstanding amount owed to the
state tax authority, the Individual testified that he was working in the state and “[w]hen [he] went
to change [his] residency to [the state], the state [tax agency] determined that [he] owed them
money.” Id. at 68. The Individual testified that he was as a result “caught off guard.” Id.
The Individual also testified that he did not meet the minimum income threshold requirements for
tax years 2017 and 2018. Id. at 60. Regarding his federal and state income taxes for tax years 2017
and 2018, the Individual provided an August 2024 letter from a certified public accountant who
indicated that pursuant to the Individual’s IRS wage and income transcripts, the Individual grossed
$3,701 in 2017 and $4,750 in 2018. Ex. A at 1, 3, 5. Accordingly, as the Individual was filing
“single” and under the age of 65 in 2017, he was not required to file his 2017 income taxes pursuant
to IRS Publication 501, as he earned less than the threshold amount of $10,400. Id. at 2. Similarly,
he was not required to file his 2018 federal income taxes because he earned less than the threshold
amount of $12,000, filing “single” and under the age of 65. Id. at 4. The Individual also submitted
official instructions published by the state tax authority regarding individual income taxes. Ex. D.
Pursuant to the instructions provided for tax years 2017 and 2018, the Individual was not required
to file income taxes for either tax year unless his federal gross income exceeded $8,750. Id. at 5,
26.
The Individual admitted in his testimony that he continues to drink “on a pretty much daily basis”
but stressed the fact that he does not have any criminal convictions stemming from his
consumption. Tr. at 86, 121–22. He noted that he is “doing a lot better[,]” as he has “built a support
network,” “sought help,” and “made friends[.]” Id. at 86–87. The Individual indicated that he
understands why alcohol consumption is a concern, and since reading the Report, he has signed
up “for additional support groups” through the OP, the first meeting of which was scheduled in
the days following the hearing. Id. at 87–89. He intends to continue seeking support, as “an
incremental approach has been beneficial” to him. Id. at 88. Ultimately, his “plan is to only have
two drinks a week[,]” and in his testimony, he claimed to be currently averaging seven drinks per
week. Id. at 88–89. The last time he admitted to becoming intoxicated was Christmas Eve, which
was about one month prior to the hearing. Id. at 93. He estimated that from June 2024 to the date
of the hearing, he was consuming to intoxication about once per month, which is a decrease, as he
was “drinking to intoxication almost every day” at the start of 2024. Id. at 111–12. He clarified
that at the time he met with the DOE Psychologist, he was consuming “about a pint of liquor a
day[.]” Id. at 112–13. He also made clear that while he stopped attending the OP group sessions
that he began attending in October 2022, he was still attending one-on-one therapy sessions with
the same providers he began seeing in October 2022. Id. at 106. The Individual has since reduced
the frequency of the sessions he has with the providers, and now receives one-on-one therapy every
four to six weeks. Id. at 80.
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption has “been
present for a long period of time[,]” dating back to the time he was consuming alcohol as a
teenager. Id. at 128. She also opined that the Individual’s anxiety was making it difficult for him
to tolerate stress and regulate his emotions, causing “interaction between the emotional symptoms
and the drinking behavior.” Id. at 130. Accordingly, the Individual “had poor control over his
drinking behavior[,]” and he was “us[ing] drinking to escape from negative mood states.” Id. She
8
explained that alcohol consumption actually increased symptoms of anxiety and depression,
prompting the Individual to consume more alcohol. Id. at 131. She concluded that at the time of
the hearing, the Individual still suffered from AUD, Severe, and although she could not determine
whether the Individual “fully meets criteria for anxiety disorder DSM level[,]” his “problematic
symptoms of anxiety and emotional dysregulation and problems with distress tolerance.” Id. at
143. Her prognosis for the Individual, should he continue to drink alcohol, was “poor to
guarded[,]” and she concluded that he had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Id.
The Individual’s friend of approximately two years testified that she currently sees the Individual
in a social context about two or three times per month, and during those visits, she has seen the
Individual consume “a couple of drinks[.]” Id. at 13–16. Although she has “never seen [the
Individual] sloppy drunk or belligerent,” she has had some concerns over the Individual’s alcohol
consumption, primarily regarding how high the Individual’s tolerance is. Id. at 16. The Individual
had also told her about his breakup and the subsequent increase in his alcohol consumption, but
she believes that his consumption is now “a bit better[.]” Id. at 16, 18. In their conversations, the
Individual has told her that he consumes “a cocktail in the evening after work most days.” Id. at
18. She considers herself to be part of his support system. Id. at 19.
The Individual’s former foreman testified that he has known the Individual since 2008 and stated
that he considers himself to be “very close” to the Individual. Id. at 23–24, 26. Following the
Individual’s breakup, the Individual sought consolation and comfort from his former foreman. Id.
at 27–29. He remembers the Individual “drinking heavily” at that time, as “it was hard for him to
cope with the loss.” Id. at 28. During that period, the Individual would have “cry session[s]” with
the former foreman on Friday nights while they consumed approximately a fifth of vodka together.
Id. at 29. This lasted “for the better part of a month” until the Individual visited without a bottle of
vodka, as he had decided that he “needed to change something.” Id. The Individual’s former
foreman testified that based on his knowledge, the Individual’s alcohol consumption decreased
from that day forward. Id. at 29–30. He did recount that the Individual was disciplined by his
employer during the aforementioned month of drinking, as he was reporting to work late with the
odor of alcohol about him. Id. at 31. The former foreman was concerned by the Individual’s alcohol
consumption during that month, but his concern dissipated after the Individual reduced his
consumption. Id. at 32–33, 35.
The Individual’s current workplace lead, who began working with the Individual in 2024, testified
that in early 2024, the Individual was taking sick leave and reporting to work late, causing him
some concern. Id. at 45, 47–48. When he addressed the matter with the Individual, he learned about
the Individual’s 2022 breakup and how “distraught” the Individual remained over the matter. Id.
at 45–46. The Individual’s lead offered the Individual some help, as the Individual’s behavior was
“a little bit erratic” at that time. Id. at 46. He indicated that the Individual has since changed, and
he is not the “same person that he was for the first eight or ten months that [the witness] knew
him.” Id. at 47. The Individual began changing his behavior in mid-2024, as he seemed to be in a
better frame of mind and was coming to work on time. Id. at 49. The Individual’s lead does not
have any concerns about the Individual’s alcohol use. Id. at 51.
V. Analysis
9
Guideline F
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline F include:
(a) The behavior happened so long ago, was so infrequent, or occurred under such
circumstances that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s
current reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The conditions that resulted in the financial problem were largely beyond the
person’s control (e.g., loss of employment, a business downturn, unexpected
medical emergency, a death, divorce or separation, clear victimization by predatory
lending practices, or identity theft), and the individual acted responsibly under the
circumstances;
(c) The individual has received or is receiving financial counseling for the problem
from a legitimate and credible source, such as a non-profit credit counseling
service, and there are clear indications that the problem is being resolved or is under
control;
(d) The individual initiated and is adhering to a good-faith effort to repay overdue
creditors or otherwise resolve debts;
(e) The individual has a reasonable basis to dispute the legitimacy of the past-due debt
which is the cause of the problem and provides documented proof to substantiate
the basis of the dispute or provides evidence of actions to resolve the issue;
(f) The affluence resulted from a legal source of income; and
(g) The individual has made arrangements with the appropriate tax authority to file or
pay the amount owed and is in compliance with those arrangements.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 20.
Regarding the matter of the Individual’s federal and state income taxes for tax years 2017 and
2018, it is clear that the Individual did not meet the minimum income threshold to necessitate the
filing of income taxes for the aforementioned tax years. The Adjudicative Guidelines specifically
indicate that the failure to file or pay annual Federal or state income tax as required could raise a
security concern. Here, the Individual was not required to file federal or state income taxes for tax
years 2017 and 2018. Accordingly, the conduct, as it specifically relates to the matter of the
Individual’s unfiled federal and state income taxes for tax years 2017 and 2018, does not present
a security concern under Guideline F.
Regarding the concern that the Individual owes the IRS an outstanding balance for tax year 2022,
the Individual submitted an IRS tax transcript that indicates the outstanding amount was satisfied
10
in full in August 2024, bringing the account balance to $0. Accordingly, the Individual has
mitigated this stated concern pursuant to mitigating factor (g). However, I cannot conclude the
same for the outstanding amount owed to the state tax authority for tax year 2022. While I do have
a letter from the state tax authority indicating that the Individual has established a payment plan to
satisfy the outstanding debt in increments of $50 per month, the Individual did not submit any
documents indicating that he is actually paying this amount on a monthly basis. Although he
testified that he is current with these payments, even paying more than the required $50, I do not
have documentary evidence to corroborate the Individual’s testimony. Therefore, while I can
conclude that the Individual has made the appropriate arrangements to resolve this debt, I cannot
conclude that he is in compliance with those arrangements. Regarding the remainder of the
mitigating factors, the debt appears to be ongoing, I cannot conclude that the behavior occurred so
long ago, was infrequent, or occurred under such circumstances that it is unlikely to recur. Also,
there is nothing in the record to suggest that the conditions surrounding the outstanding amount
were beyond the Individual’s control. As such, the Individual has failed to mitigate pursuant to
factors (a) and (b). There is no information that this issue is amenable to resolution through
financial counseling, and although the Individual has engaged in a payment plan, I have no
corroborating evidence that the Individual is adhering to the plan. Lastly, there was no dispute
regarding the legitimacy of the debt or any allegation of affluence. As such, the Individual has
failed to mitigate the stated concern pursuant to mitigating factors (c), (d), (e), and (f).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline F.
Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(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.
11
During his testimony, the Individual stressed the fact that he has not, as a result of his alcohol
consumption, committed any criminal acts. However, as indicated above, there is no requirement
for one to commit a criminal act for a concern to arise under Guideline G. While there is no
indication in the record that the Individual has committed any alcohol-related crimes, the record
clearly indicates that the Individual has engaged in problematic alcohol consumption for years. He
has been told by more than one provider to discontinue consuming alcohol and was prescribed
medication to achieve that end. Not only does he continue to drink despite advice to stop, but he
drank while taking the aforementioned medication. It is also concerning that the Individual
continued drinking throughout treatment, despite being exposed to alcohol education, and the fact
that he felt a greater craving for alcohol following group sessions and AA meetings reflects the
severity of his AUD diagnosis. The Individual even admitted to the DOE Psychologist that he has
a problem with alcohol, and yet, this understanding did not compel him to take the necessary steps
to stop drinking. This simply evidences poor judgment. Importantly, the DOE Psychologist
concluded that the Individual has not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation
and that if he continues to drink, his prognosis is poor.
As the Individual still consumes alcohol and he continues to meet the diagnostic criteria for AUD,
I cannot conclude that so much time has passed since the problematic behavior took place. I also
cannot conclude that the behavior is infrequent or that the behavior took place under unusual
circumstances. The fact that the Individual continues to drink following an AUD diagnosis and
treatment only casts doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. The Individual
has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
While the Individual has voiced his understanding that his alcohol consumption is maladaptive
and attended an OP, he has not remained abstinent from alcohol in compliance with
recommendations from providers. Accordingly, he has not mitigated the stated concerns pursuant
to mitigating factor (b). I also do not have any evidence that the one-on-one therapy sessions the
Individual is attending constitute aftercare as contemplated by the OP. This fact taken in
conjunction with the fact that he has not remained abstinent from alcohol leads me to the
conclusion that he has not mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (d). Also,
while the Individual is receiving one-on-one therapy for, among other things, his maladaptive
alcohol use, I have no meaningful information regarding whether he is making any satisfactory
progress with regard to his problematic alcohol consumption. In the context of his AUD diagnosis,
which is severe, a mere reduction of alcohol consumption is simply not enough to resolve the
security concerns, especially when more than one provider has told the Individual that he should
stop drinking. I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to
mitigating factor (c).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
Guideline I
12
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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
Based on the information in the record, the Individual has clinically significant anxiety with poor
emotional regulation and distress tolerance that continued to the time of the hearing. The record
also indicates that the Individual is seeking one-on-one therapy with two different providers, one
of whom indicated that the Individual is no longer exhibiting significant symptoms of depression
and anxiety. Supra note 8. While I give some weight to the information provided in the provider’s
letter regarding the matter, I did not have the benefit of her testimony and any cross-examination
of her as a witness. What I do have is the DOE Psychologist’s Report and testimony indicating
that the Individual experienced clinically significant anxiety and that the Individual “had poor
control over his drinking behavior[,]” and he was “us[ing] drinking to escape from negative mood
states.” Tr. at 130. There is an interface between the Individual’s alcohol consumption and anxiety.
While it appears that the Individual continues to seek treatment for his anxiety, he has not stopped
drinking alcohol. Without addressing his maladaptive alcohol consumption, it does not appear that
his anxiety symptoms, which impact his judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness, will
be entirely resolved.
While the letter from the Individual’s one-on-one provider indicates that the Individual “has no
significant symptoms of depression and anxiety[,]” the letter does not indicate whether the
Individual has a treatment plan and whether he is in compliance with the plan. Accordingly, the
stated concern has not been mitigating pursuant to mitigating factor (a). Neither the Individual’s
one-on-one provider nor the DOE Psychologist provided a prognosis specific to the Individual’s
anxiety diagnosis, and accordingly, the Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concern pursuant
to mitigating factor (b). As the DOE Psychologist, the only mental health provider in this case who
was approved by and is acceptable to the U.S. Government, did not indicate that the Individual’s
13
anxiety is in remission, the stated concern has not been mitigated pursuant to mitigating factor (c).
As the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s problematic anxiety symptoms continue
and have not been resolved, and because there is no indication that the condition was temporary,
the stated concern has not been resolved pursuant to mitigating factors (d) and (e).
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, F, 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, Guideline F, 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