PSH-25-0001

*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: October 3, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0001
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 12, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Diane L. Miles, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material.”1 As discussed below, after carefully considering the record before me
in light of the relevant regulations and the National Security Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive
Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access
authorization should be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed with a DOE Contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. In August 2023, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), in which he reported that in July 2015, he was arrested for Driving Under the
Influence (DUI). Exhibit (Ex.) 9 at 90, 121–22.2 During an October 2023 Enhanced Subject
Interview (ESI), the Individual told an investigator with the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM) that since July 2019 he had drank alcohol “two times per month,” and he typically
consumed “no more than three beers,” when he drank. Id. at 140, 145.
In February 2024, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual, which sought additional information related to the Individual’s alcohol consumption.
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 DOE’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 207-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This Decision will
cite to the DOE’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook regardless of
any internal pagination.
- 2 -
Ex. 6. In his response to the LOI, the Individual reported that since the summer or fall of 2019, he
typically consumed “1-3 beers on weekends.” Id. at 30.
The LSO referred the Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (DOE
Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview of the Individual in March 2024, and issued a
report (the Report) of his findings. Ex. 7. During his interview, the Individual reported consuming
“2–3 beers from Friday to Saturday” since 2023. Id. at 50. On March 18, 2024, as part of the
evaluation, the Individual underwent alcohol testing, in the form of a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)
test,3 which was positive at a level of 552 ng/mL. Id. at 52. A medical doctor opined that the
Individual’s PEth test result was “almost 30 times higher than the positive threshold of 20ng/mL”
and indicated “a recent history of regular heavy drinking.” Id. at 52, 66–67.
Two days after his PEth test, the Individual contacted the DOE Psychologist by email to clarify
the level of his alcohol consumption he reported during his clinical interview. Ex. 7 at 50. The
Individual notified the DOE Psychologist that after speaking to his wife about his psychological
evaluation, his wife advised him that he “[drinks] more alcohol than what he reported … as she
purchases the alcohol.” Id. The Individual reported that “from Thursday through Saturday,
sometimes Sundays,” he consumes “3–4 beers per evening” and estimated that he consumes
approximately 12–18 beers per weekend. Id. Based on his evaluation of the Individual, the DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual habitually consumes alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment and there was no evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 53.
In June 2024, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex.
1 at 7–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5–6.
In September 2024, the Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded
the Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. 2. The Director of OHA
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10
C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from five witnesses: the Individual, the
Individual’s colleague, the Individual’s friend, the Individual’s former manager, and the DOE
Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0001 (Tr.). Counsel for the DOE
submitted 9 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 9. The Individual submitted 18 exhibits,
marked as Exhibits A through R.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC specifically cites Guidelines E and G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1.
3 PEth is “an abnormal metabolite of ethyl alcohol” that is made when high concentrations of alcohol react with a
compound in red blood cells. Ex. 7 at 52. Once formed, PEth can be detected in a person’s blood “for about 28 days
after alcohol consumption.” Id. at 66. “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to
heavy [alcohol] consumption.” Id. at 67.
- 3 -
A. Guideline E (Personal Conduct)
Guideline E provides that “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty,
or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline E include:
“deliberately providing false or misleading information” to “an employer, investigator, security
official, [or a] competent medical or mental health professional involved in making a
recommendation relevant to a national security eligibility determination.” Id. at ¶ 16(b). In
invoking Guideline E, the LSO alleged the Individual was dishonest about his alcohol consumption
and cited the following information:
During his [October 2023 ESI, the Individual] admitted that from July of 2019 to
present, he consumes alcohol two times per month and drinks no more than three
beers when he drinks. However, in the [February 2024 LOI], he then admitted that
from summer/fall of 2019 to present, he consumes 1-3 beers on weekends. He then
admitted during his psychological evaluation [with the DOE Psychologist] that he
consumes 2-3 beers each Friday and Saturday; and when he was referred for a
[PEth] test, he then contacted [the DOE Psychologist], and ‘clarified’ that he
consumes more and drinks IPA beer every Thursday thru Saturday, sometimes
Sunday, 3-4 beers per sitting, which is approximately 12-18 beers per weekend.
Additionally, his PEth test results dated March 25, 2024, was positive at a level of
552 ng/mL, which is consistent with heavy alcohol consumption and consistent
with him consuming at least six alcoholic drinks per day, which is significantly
more than he admitted.
Ex. 1 at 5.
B. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
Under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines, “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. Conditions
that could raise a security concern under Guideline G include: “alcohol-related incidents away
from work, such as driving while under the influence” and the “habitual or binge consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with
alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c).
In invoking Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual
is a “habitual and heavy user of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and there was no
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.” Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also cited the Individual’s July
2015 arrest for DUI. Id. at 6.4
4 The LSO additionally cited to the results of the PEth test conducted in conjunction with the psychological evaluation
and information provided by the Individual concerning his history of alcohol consumption. Ex. 1 at 5‒6. While this
- 4 -
Based on the above-referenced conduct, I find the LSO’s security concerns under Guidelines E
and G are 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 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
Before his July 2015 arrest for DUI, the Individual consumed “two liquor drinks and an unrecalled
amount of beer” while at a friend’s home. Ex. 9 at 142. While driving home, the Individual made
an unsafe lane change and was pulled over by a police officer. Id. A police officer arrested the
Individual for DUI after he failed a field sobriety test, and took a breathalyzer test, the result of
which indicated his blood alcohol concentration was over the legal limit. Ex. 9 at 142; Ex. 6 at 29.
After his arrest, the Individual was required to serve two years of probation and attend a weekly
alcohol awareness class from March 2016 to June 2016. Ex. 9 at 146; Tr. at 111. The Individual
was also required to attend a Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) class, and complete 50
hours of community service. Tr. at 122, 142.
During his October 2023 ESI, the Individual reported that as of July 2019, he would consume
alcohol “two times per month” and he would drink “no more than three beers” at a time. Ex. 9 at
145. In his February 2024 LOI, the Individual reported that since the summer or fall of 2019, he
consumed “1–3 beers on weekends, or outings with friends/family, or at special events/holidays.”
Ex. 6 at 30–31. He also reported that the last time he consumed alcohol was during a Valentine’s
Day dinner, on February 17, 2024, during which he consumed “two and a half beers.” Id. at 31.
information informed the DOE Psychologist’s opinion and provided additional detail concerning the circumstances
of the Individual’s DUI, the information does not present security concerns in and of itself.
- 5 -
During his March 2024 psychological evaluation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that
after his July 2015 DUI, he abstained from alcohol for six months, but he ultimately resumed
drinking. Ex. 7 at 50. From 2016 to 2018, the Individual would consume alcohol four to five times
per week, and since 2023, he typically consumed “2–3 beers from Friday to Saturday.” Id. After
the interview, the Individual emailed the DOE Psychologist and clarified that since 2023, he
typically consumed three to four beers per evening, and he estimated that he consumed
“approximately 12–18 beers” per weekend. Id. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s
self-report of his alcohol consumption was inconsistent with the results of his PEth test, which was
positive at a level of 552 ng/mL. Id. at 53, 66–67. The DOE Psychologist also opined that the
Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and there was no
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 53–54.
The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual address his habitual consumption of
alcohol by abstaining from alcohol for 12 months, supported by monthly PEth testing. Ex. 7 at 53.
He also recommended that the Individual complete an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) and
attend aftercare meetings for ten weeks thereafter. Id. Finally, the DOE Psychologist recommended
that, in lieu of an IOP, the Individual could “actively participate” in an Alcoholics Anonymous
(AA) 12–step program, or another “evidenced based program,” such as SMART Recovery, for 12
months. Id. at 53–54.
During the hearing, the Individual’s colleague testified that he has worked with the Individual, at
the same DOE contractor, for approximately one year, and he sees the Individual almost daily. Tr.
at 11, 16. While at work, he has never had any concerns about the Individual’s alcohol use. Id. at
16. About six months ago, the Individual told him that after he realized how much he was drinking,
he decided to quit. Id. at 16–17. He also stated the Individual told him he was attending alcohol
counseling and undergoing alcohol testing regularly. Id. at 17. He stated that since the Individual
stopped drinking alcohol six months ago, he appears to have more energy and is “a little bit
brighter” at work. Id. at 17–18. He stated that he and the Individual recently went to a bar together,
the Individual did not consume alcohol, and they both still had a great time together. Id. at 18–19.
The Individual’s friend testified that he has known the Individual for almost 20 years. Tr. at 22.
He described the Individual as a hard worker and a trustworthy person. Id. at 24. He understood
that, during the security clearance process, the Individual made statements about his drinking that
“didn’t add up,” and there were concerns about his alcohol consumption. Id. at 25. He believed the
Individual stopped drinking in approximately July 2024. Id. at 29. In November 2024, he invited
the Individual to his apartment and offered him a beer, and the Individual told him he wasn’t
drinking. Id. at 28–29. He stated the Individual told him about his alcohol treatment: his
counseling, his meetings with his psychologists, his meetings with his lawyer, and how he is doing
everything he can to get a security clearance. Id. at 29–30. Since the Individual has stopped
drinking, he noticed the Individual has lost weight and is less stressed. Id. at 30.
The Individual’s former manager testified that he has known the Individual for a year and a half.
Tr. at 37. He sees the Individual every day and they communicate by text message almost every
day. Id. at 38. He described the Individual as trustworthy and as a diligent worker. Id. at 40, 44.
He understood that there were concerns about the Individual’s alcohol consumption and whether
- 6 -
he should be granted a security clearance. Id. at 41–42. He stated that when the Individual realized
he may not be granted a clearance, he quit drinking alcohol “cold turkey,” attended alcohol
treatment, and underwent alcohol testing to prove he has not been drinking. Id. at 48. During
“multiple talks” with the Individual, he has learned that the Individual intends to “swear off
drinking” for good. Id. at 50–51.
At the hearing, the Individual provided an overview of his family history, he explained that his
family owned a bar, and he explained that he grew up around people who were drinking alcohol.
Tr. at 55–62; Ex. A. He stated that his reporting of his alcohol consumption during his ESI, and in
his LOI, were accurate at the time they were made. Tr. at 63–67. He did not intend his statement
to the DOE Psychologist, that he consumed “2–3 beers Friday to Saturday,” to mean anything
different than his statement, that he consumed “1–3 beers on weekends,” in the LOI. Id. at 67–68.
He explained that after his interview with the DOE Psychologist, he discussed his interview with
his wife. Id. at 69. His wife reminded him that he was drinking for his birthday a few weeks ago
and was drinking while family members were staying at their home during the holidays, and so he
was drinking more than what he told the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 9, 86–87. After he was corrected
by his wife, he contacted the DOE Psychologist and attempted to clarify his report of his alcohol
consumption. Id. at 70–71. He stated that he never intended to omit or falsify any information
related to his alcohol consumption. Id. at 82. He attributed his inconsistent statements to his failure
to pay attention to his alcohol consumption. Id. at 82–83. He stated that his last drink was on July
13, 2024. Id. at 90, 92–93.
As for his alcohol treatment, the Individual testified that a week or two after he received the Report,
he started attending AA because the DOE Psychologist recommended the program. Tr. at 72, 91.
After he attended three AA meetings, he did not find the program to be helpful, and he stopped
attending. Id. at 72. In August 2024, he enrolled in SMART Recovery, which, he stated, took a
more “scientific approach” to addressing his alcohol consumption, and attended his first meeting
on August 9, 2024. Id. at 72, 81, 91–92, 95; Ex. H. The SMART Recovery program consists of
three meetings per week: in-person meetings on Mondays and Fridays, and an online meeting on
Wednesdays. Tr. at 81, 96. The Individual attended SMART Recovery for four months, from
August 2024 until November 2024, when then he stopped attending the program, so he could enroll
in an IOP. Id. at 98–99.
From November 9, 2024, to January 2, 2025, the Individual participated in an IOP. Tr. at 73, 96–
97; Ex. F. The Individual submitted a Certificate of Completion from the program. Ex. G. Before
the Individual could enroll in the IOP, he was required to undergo urine testing to demonstrate he
was sober. Tr. at 75. The Individual explained that the IOP was an eight-week program and
consisted of three meetings per week. Id. at 74. Each week, he had two days of group meetings,
and one day of one-on-one meetings with his own personal counselor, which occurred online. Id.
Each group meeting would involve a discussion of a topic specific to addiction, and how that topic
affects one’s perception of the substance they are using, or the thing they are addicted to. Id. Before
every meeting, he was given a breathalyzer test, and every other week, he had to undergo Ethyl
Glucuronide (EtG) testing, to ensure he was not consuming alcohol. Id. at 75. He found the IOP to
be useful to him because it forced him to come to terms with “a lot of things that [he] never thought
about” related to alcohol. Id. at 76–77. Before enrolling in the IOP, he believed that, because he
typically consumed beer, rather than “hard liquor,” his level of alcohol consumption was “not that
- 7 -
serious.” Id. at 79. Since completing the IOP, he realizes he did not have a good relationship with
alcohol, and he learned his triggers to drink were the “societal and familial norms” in his life; being
around people who are drinking. Id. at 79, 100–01. He has also learned to change his thought
process around drinking and how to replace drinking alcohol with other activities. Id. at 77–78.
The Individual submitted a letter from his Peer Support Recovery Specialist at the IOP, which
indicated that during the program, the Individual demonstrated a strong commitment to his
recovery, was an active participant during his meetings, and provided thoughtful encouragement
to other participants. Ex. H.
After completing the IOP in January 2025, he enrolled in their aftercare program, which consists
of two meetings per week. Tr. at 105–06. He intends to continue the aftercare program for the
next “two to three months.” Id. at 106. He also stated he currently attends weekly meetings with
the IOP’s “alumni program,” every Thursday. Id. at 77. The Individual also resumed his
participation in the SMART Recovery program and, as of the hearing, he completed three weeks
of meetings. Id. at 105. Since he stopped drinking alcohol in July 2024, the Individual spends more
time playing musical instruments, and he recently enrolled in college. Id. at 78. He also engages
in more outdoor activities with his wife. Id. at 102. His wife does not drink alcohol, and he does
not keep alcohol in his home. Id. at 108. He identified his wife, his former manager, and two
friends as people in his support system who will help him continue to abstain from alcohol. Id. at
103–04. The Individual stated he intended to continue attending the SMART Recovery program
because he really enjoys it. Id. at 81.
The Individual submitted seven letters of recommendation, including letters from his colleague,
his friend, and former manager. Exs. K–Q. The letters contain positive descriptions of the
Individual’s character, and the quality of his work with his employer. Id. The Individual also
submitted documentation showing he underwent monthly PEth testing, from September 2024
through January 2025, each of which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption. Exs. B–D,
Ex. R. The Individual also submitted documentation showing that while enrolled in the IOP, he
took four EtG tests between November 2024 and December 2024, each of which was negative for
traces of alcohol consumption. Ex. E; Ex. I.
The DOE Psychologist testified that, based on the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing,
the Individual had demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from his
habitual alcohol consumption. Tr. at 122, 133. He found the Individual’s act of correcting his report
of his alcohol consumption after his interview to be “fine,” and not suggestive of the Individual
being defensive about his alcohol consumption. Id. at 118. As to the Individual’s inconsistent
reporting of his alcohol consumption, referenced in the SSC, the DOE Psychologist stated that
“it’s not unusual for people [like the Individual] to engage in minimization [of their alcohol
consumption], especially when it comes to their jobs and other dynamics.” Id. at 126.
As to the Individual’s alcohol treatment, the DOE Psychologist stated the Individual’s
documentation of five negative PEth tests and four negative EtG tests, supports that he has been
abstinent from alcohol for six months, since August 2024. Tr. at 120–21, 127–28. Although he
recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for 12 months, he believed the Individual
had done “everything conceivably possible to do the right thing, to seek treatment, [and] to
internalize [his] treatment” before the hearing. Id. at 123. He said the Individual was not “guarded”
- 8 -
in his recovery, he wasn’t “fighting us on his issues,” and he was moving forward in his sobriety
in a healthy way, so another six months of PEth testing was “not necessary.” Id. He stated the
Individual’s participation in SMART Recovery, which is a “cognitive-behavioral focused”
program, while diligently working to find an IOP, showed he was serious about his alcohol
treatment. Id. at 120, 129. He stated that the Individual is doing a great job maintaining his
abstinence and that his confidence in him has increased since the evaluation. Id. at 122. He stated
the Individual has shown insight into his problem with alcohol, has a good support system around
him, understands his triggers, and has “developed relapse prevention strategies pertaining to [his]
triggers,” including continuing with the IOP’s aftercare and alumni programs, continuing with
SMART Recovery, and keeping alcohol out of the home. Id. at 122, 129–31. His prognosis for the
Individual was positive. Id. at 122.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth four factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G:
(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.
Based upon the evidence before me, I find the Individual has mitigated the stated Guideline G
concerns under factor ¶ 23(b) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The Individual’s July 2015 arrest
for DUI, his March 2024 PEth test result, which revealed he consumed more alcohol than he
reported, and the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that he consumes alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, are all related to his alcohol consumption. The Individual testified that because he
typically consumed beer, and not other forms of alcoholic beverages, he did not think his level of
alcohol consumption was a serious issue. He also testified that since his psychological evaluation
- 9 -
and completion of an IOP, he realized that he did not have a good relationship with alcohol, and
that his environment at home contributed to his habitual alcohol consumption.
The Individual has provided evidence he has taken actions to overcome his habitual consumption
of alcohol by following the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation to enroll in alcohol treatment.
The Individual submitted documentary evidence, to support his testimony, that he enrolled in the
SMART Recovery program and completed four months of treatment, from August 2024 to
November 2024. The Individual submitted a Certificate of Completion, indicating he completed
an IOP, in January 2025, during which he received individual and group counseling. Since
completing the IOP, the Individual has enrolled in the IOP’s aftercare program to continue
treatment, which meets two days per week, and participates in the IOP’s alumni program, which
meets one day per week. As of the hearing, the Individual completed three and a half weeks of
aftercare. The Individual also submitted documentary evidence to support his testimony that after
completing the IOP, he resumed his participation in the SMART Recovery program, and he
testified to his intention to continue with the IOP’s aftercare program for the next two to three
months. Finally, the Individual submitted documentary evidence, in the form of negative PEth and
EtG test results, that demonstrates he has abstained from alcohol for approximately six months,
and testified to having a support network to help him continue to abstain from alcohol.
Finally, although the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual obtain 12 months of
alcohol treatment, he opined that the Individual had shown adequate evidence of reformation and
rehabilitation from his habitual alcohol consumption after just six months. The DOE Psychologist
found that since his evaluation, the Individual had done “everything conceivably possible” to
satisfy his treatment recommendations before the hearing. Tr. at 123. He found that the
Individual’s completion of an eight-week IOP and over four months of the SMART Recovery
program showed that he was serious about his treatment, and that he has displayed insight into his
alcohol problem. He also stated that the Individual is moving forward with his sobriety in a healthy
way, he credited the Individual’s development of strategies to prevent relapse, including his
continued participation in SMART Recovery, his continued participating in the IOP’s aftercare
and alumni programs, and his commitment to keeping alcohol out of his home. Because he was
satisfied with the progress of the Individual’s treatment, he determined that six months of
abstinence, supported by PEth testing, was sufficient to establish a pattern of abstinence from
alcohol, and another six months of PEth testing was not necessary.
Therefore, I conclude that the Individual has provided sufficient evidence of actions taken to
overcome his habitual alcohol consumption and a has demonstrated clear and established pattern
of abstinence sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at
¶ 23(b).
B. Guideline E
- 10 -
The Adjudicative Guidelines set forth seven factors that may mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
Having mitigated the alcohol concerns under Guideline G, I conclude that the concerns raised by
the Individual’s inconsistent estimates of his alcohol consumption, made during his ESI, in his
LOI, and to the DOE Psychologist, have been mitigated under factor ¶ 17(d) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. The DOE Psychologist testified that it is not uncommon for people who habitually
consume alcohol to minimize the amount they are drinking.
Furthermore, as explained above, I find that the Individual has acknowledged that his relationship
with alcohol was not good, and he has submitted evidence that he has obtained alcohol treatment
to address his habitual consumption and alleviate the factors that contributed to his inconsistent
reporting. The Individual submitted evidence that he successfully completed an eight-week IOP,
participated in the SMART Recovery program for four months and three weeks, and since
- 11 -
completing the IOP, has enrolled in the IOP’s aftercare and alumni programs, of which the
Individual completed three weeks of meetings as of the hearing. The Individual also submitted
evidence he has abstained from alcohol for approximately six months. I am persuaded by the DOE
Psychologist’s opinion, that the Individual has shown adequate evidence of reformation and
rehabilitation from his habitual alcohol consumption and that the Individual’s prognosis is positive,
given his continued participation in the IOP’s aftercare and alumni programs, his support network,
and the Individual’s development of strategies to prevent a relapse.
Therefore, I find that the security concerns related to the Individual’s previous inconsistent
estimates of his alcohol consumption are unlikely to recur in the future and he has mitigated the
stated Guideline E concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(d).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E and G 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 brought forth sufficient evidence
to resolve the security concerns set forth in the Notification Letter. Accordingly, I find the
Individual has demonstrated that granting him a security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that
the Individual’s access authorization should be granted. This Decision may be appealed in
accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane L. Miles
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals