PSH-25-0003

*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-25-0003
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 28, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual should be granted access authorization.
I. BACKGROUND
On June 13, 2023, the Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions in
connection with seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 8 at 61.2 On May 20, 2024, the
Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for a psychological
evaluation as part of the adjudication of his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 6 at 26.
Although the Individual was “originally referred [to the DOE Psychologist] as a mental health
concern,” during the evaluation, he reported that he drank a “[twelve]-pack [of beer] on most
weekends.” Id. at 29. At the request of the DOE Psychologist, the Individual provided a sample
for Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing,3 the result of which was positive at a level of 90 ng/mL.
Id. at 36. On May 29, 2024, the DOE Psychologist issued the results of the psychological
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This Decision will refer
to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE.
3 PEth is a compound which “accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell membrane.” Ex. 6 at 34. A PEth
test can detect evidence of alcohol consumption “over the previous 28-30 days.” Id.
- 2 -
evaluation (Report) in which she opined that the Individual “has been consuming significant
amounts of alcohol due to weekly episodes of binge drinking.”4 Id. at 30. She further opined that
“PEth results confirm that [the Individual] is drinking significant amounts of alcohol during those
occasions, which can impair judgment.”5 Id.
The Local Security Office (LSO) subsequently issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising
him that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility
for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6‒7. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the
letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline
G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted eight exhibits (Ex. 1–8). The Individual submitted nine exhibits (Ex. A‒I). The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of a counselor from his intensive
outpatient program (IOP Counselor), his father, his wife, a former supervisor, and a current
supervisor. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0003 (Tr.) at 12‒96. The LSO offered the
testimony of the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 97‒105.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5.
“Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure
to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. The SSC cited the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual
“consumes significant amounts of alcohol due to weekly episodes of binge drinking[,]” which
could “impair [his] judgement.” Ex. 1 at 5. The SSC additionally cited the Individual’s PEth test
result of 90 ng/mL and representation during the psychological evaluation that “his current alcohol
consumption is no more than four beers on a Friday night and not more than twelve-pack (beer)
over a weekend.”6 Id.
4 The DOE Psychologist cited a Centers for Disease Control (CDC) definition of binge drinking as monthly
consumption of five or more drinks in a single occasion. Ex. 6 at 31. The DOE Psychologist also noted that “the
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) defines binge drinking as a pattern of drinking that
brings blood alcohol concentration (BAC) levels to 0.08 g/dL[,] [which] typically occurs after . . . [five] drinks for
men in about [two] hours.” Id.
5 According to the medical doctor who interpreted the Individual’s PEth test results, “PEth greater than 20 ng/mL
corresponds to significant alcohol consumption (averaging 2-4 drinks/day several days/week).” Ex. 6 at 28.
6 Although the LSO cited the Individual’s PEth test result and representation regarding his weekly alcohol
consumption as distinct security concerns, I find that these concerns are more properly characterized as facts
supporting the DOE Psychologist’s opinion, rather than stand-alone allegations. Accordingly, I will only consider
these facts in the context of analyzing the DOE Psychologist’s opinion below.
- 3 -
The LSO’s allegation that the Individual binge consumes alcohol on a weekly basis justifies its
invocation of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(c).
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 of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An 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). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her 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
As stated above, the Individual met with the DOE Psychologist in May 2024. Ex. 6 at 26. During
the evaluation, the Individual stated that after a June 2020 hospitalization for mental health
reasons, he attended weekly telehealth sessions with a counselor (Individual’s Counselor) until
June 2021.7 Id. at 27. The Individual further reported that he “drank heavily” following this
hospitalization and “described his current alcohol consumption as none during the week, but a
[twelve]-pack [of beer] on most weekends.” Id. at 29. The Individual indicated that he “felt a buzz”
when he drank on the weekend and that he “d[id not] stop at one beer.” Id. Based on the
Individual’s statements regarding his alcohol consumption, the DOE Psychologist requested that
he be administered a PEth test, the result of which was positive at a level of 90 ng/mL. Id. at 28.
In the Report, the DOE Psychologist concurred with a medical doctor’s opinion that the
Individual’s PEth test result of 90 ng/mL “indicates [the Individual] consumed on average about,
or more, than [four] drinks/day.” Id. at 29. Based on the Individual’s PEth test result and reported
alcohol consumption, the DOE Psychologist concluded that Individual consumed significant
amounts of alcohol due to weekly episodes of binge drinking. Id. at 30. To demonstrate
rehabilitation, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual attend weekly counseling
sessions with the Individual’s Counselor “with a goal of decreasing [the Individual]’s episodes of
7 As part of the Individual’s evaluation, the DOE Psychologist also spoke with the Individual’s Counselor, who
provided further information regarding the Individual’s prior counseling sessions. Ex. 6 at 27–28.
- 4 -
binge drinking.” Id. In the alternative, the DOE Psychologist stated that the Individual could attend
an outpatient alcohol-focused treatment program for three months, “which meets at least twice per
week in group settings and includes a once-a-week individual session.” Id. The DOE Psychologist
further recommended that the Individual provide monthly negative PEth tests “for the treatment
period,” or, if the Individual decided to pursue a path of reformation (i.e. “no formal treatment”),
provide a monthly negative PEth test for twelve months. Id.
In mid-July 2024, the Individual decided to abstain from alcohol because it no longer “align[ed]
with [his] religious beliefs[].” Tr. at 78; see also id. at 53 (reflecting the testimony of the
Individual’s wife that their church implemented an “honor code” disapproving of alcohol
consumption in approximately July 2024). The Individual provided samples for PEth testing on
August 23, 2024, September 20, 2024, October 18, 2024, November 15, 2024, December 13, 2024,
and January 10, 2025, each of which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption. Ex. A at 3–
7; Ex. I at 2.
On July 29, 2024, the Individual received the SSC. Tr. at 76. On August 26, 2024, the Individual
began attending an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for alcohol treatment. Id. at 13, 76. The
Individual attended the IOP four times weekly, which included three, three-hour group counseling
sessions, and one, one-hour individualized counseling session. Id. at 77. The IOP’s treatment
focused on cognitive behavioral therapy, psychoeducation, and mindfulness techniques, which
helped the Individual identify his triggers and develop coping skills. Id. at 16–17; see also id. at
78–79 (reflecting the Individual’s testimony that his coping skills included meditation, relying on
his support network, journaling in the workbook that he received from the IOP, and removing
himself from situations where alcohol is present). The IOP Counselor testified at the hearing that
the Individual “was fully engaged in the program” and “became a leader in [the] group.” Id. at 15;
see also id. at 80 (reflecting the Individual’s testimony that he has not had any problems coping
with cravings now because of the skills that he learned during the IOP).
The Individual completed the IOP on December 13, 2024. Ex. B. The IOP Counselor subsequently
recommended that the Individual participate in weekly or biweekly individualized counseling
sessions with the Individual’s Counselor after discharge from the IOP. Tr. at 21. As of the date of
the hearing, the Individual had contacted the Individual’s Counselor, but had not yet attended his
first counseling session.8 Id. at 84. The Individual stated his intent to attend weekly counseling
sessions once he was able to schedule an appointment. Id. at 91.
The Individual testified at the hearing that the adjudication of his eligibility for access
authorization had been a “blessing in disguise” as he had “grown as a person” and improved his
relationship with his wife. Id. at 89; see also id. at 50 (reflecting the testimony of the Individual’s
wife that the Individual has “better communication skills” as a result of his IOP attendance). He
asserted that he now feels more confident, energetic, and healthy as a result of his abstinence from
alcohol. Id. at 87–88. The Individual noted that he went on a cruise where alcohol was present in
late December with his family, but asserted that it was not difficult for him to abstain from alcohol
because he “built a plan with [his] family members,” brought his workbook, and attended
8 The Individual testified that he had an appointment scheduled with the Individual’s Counselor in late December, but
had to cancel due to travel. Tr. at 85, 91. He asserted that the holiday season had made it difficult to reschedule the
appointment. Id. at 84‒85.
- 5 -
Alcoholics Anonymous meetings every day while on the cruise. Id. at 86; see also id. at 32–33, 49
(reflecting the testimony of the Individual’s wife and father corroborating the Individual’s
abstinence from alcohol while on the holiday cruise).
The Individual acknowledged that he had an “unhealthy relationship” with alcohol previously and
that it was difficult for him to stop drinking at first, but noted that his abstinence “got[] much easier
over time.” Id. at 81, 89. He testified that his support system includes his parents, wife, and church.
Id. at 82, 87; see also id. at 41 (reflecting the testimony of the Individual’s father that he and the
Individual “talk about everything” and would “work through any issue that comes up”). The
Individual asserted that he has no intention of ever drinking again because of his “religious beliefs”
and desire to “keep [his] job.” Id. at 81; see also id. at 62–63, 70–71 (reflecting the testimony of
the Individual’s former and current supervisors that the Individual is a reliable employee with a
strong work ethic). The Individual also asserted that in the two weeks prior to meeting with the
DOE Psychologist in May 2024, he consumed an abnormally high amount of alcohol because he
and his wife held their wedding and traveled on their honeymoon during this period. Id. at 83. The
Individual stated that he did not inform the DOE Psychologist of these circumstances during the
evaluation. Id. at 93.
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had “exceeded” her recommendations. Id. at
101. She noted that the Individual demonstrated not only knowledge of the subject matter covered
in the treatment program, but also the ability to implement those skills in his life. Id. She
additionally cited the Individual’s “very good” support system as a positive factor supporting his
recovery. Id. In light of these positive developments, the DOE Psychologist testified that the
Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 102. She further opined that the
Individual “has an excellent prognosis.” Id. The DOE Psychologist also noted that, if she had been
aware at the time that she issued the Report of the fact that the Individual’s May 2024 PEth test
was taken within approximately two weeks of his consumption of higher than usual amounts of
alcohol related to his wedding and honeymoon, she would not have concluded that he engaged in
binge drinking. Id. at 105.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G
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;
- 6 -
(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; or,
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
At the outset, I note that the DOE Psychologist testified that, if she was aware of the circumstances
surrounding the Individual’s May 2024 PEth test result, including the fact that the sample was
taken within approximately two weeks of the Individual’s wedding and honeymoon when he
engaged in higher levels of alcohol consumption than he normally would have, she would not have
concluded that he engaged in binge drinking at the time. Accordingly, it appears that the concerns
alleged in the SSC no longer exist. However, in any event, I will address the mitigating conditions
notwithstanding the DOE Psychologist’s testimony regarding her changed opinion.
The Individual’s statements at the hearing and to the DOE Psychologist during the evaluation all
indicate that he would typically consume a twelve-pack of beer over the course of each weekend.
In light of this consistent pattern of alcohol consumption, which did not cease until less than six
months before the hearing, I find that, assuming that the Individual’s behavior constituted alcohol
misuse, it did not occur sufficiently long ago, so infrequently, or under such unusual circumstances
for the first mitigating condition to apply. Id. at ¶ 23(a).
The Individual acknowledged that his prior pattern of alcohol use was maladaptive, completed a
sixteen-week IOP, and testified regarding his knowledge and application of the skills learned
during the IOP. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual “exceeded” her treatment
recommendations and adequately demonstrated rehabilitation and reformation. Thus, the
Individual has provided evidence of actions taken to overcome his alcohol misuse. Furthermore,
the Individual presented the results of six monthly PEth tests taken between August 2024 and
January 2025, each of which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption. The DOE
Psychologist also testified that the Individual had adequately demonstrated his abstinence from
alcohol since July 2024. Thus, I find the second mitigating condition applicable. Id. at ¶ 23(b).
The Individual completed a treatment program and is not presently receiving alcohol-related
treatment. Thus, the third mitigating condition is inapplicable to the facts of this case. Id. at ¶ 23(c).
As previously stated, the Individual completed the IOP as recommended by the DOE Psychologist.
Although the Individual had not started his weekly or biweekly aftercare counseling sessions as of
the date of the hearing, the DOE Psychologist nonetheless concluded that he was adequately
rehabilitated and reformed with an excellent prognosis. Additionally, for the reasons stated in
connection with the second mitigating condition, I find that the Individual has sufficiently
established a pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Thus, I find the fourth mitigating condition applicable. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
- 7 -
The Individual has established the applicability of two of the mitigating conditions under Guideline
G, and the DOE Psychologist opined that she would not have concluded the Individual engaged in
binge drinking at the time she issued the Report if she was aware of all the facts that were later
revealed during the hearing. For these reasons, I find that the security concerns raised in the SSC
under Guideline G are resolved.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, 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 under
Guideline G. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual should be granted access
authorization. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10
C.F.R. § 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals