PSH-25-0004

*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-25-0004
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 13, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Diane L. Miles, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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.
(June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access authorization
should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position for which he holds a security
clearance. In approximately October 2023, the Individual was interviewed by an occupational
psychologist (Occupational Psychologist) at his place of employment, as part of an annual Human
Reliability Program (HRP) evaluation. Exhibit (Ex.) 5 at 44.2 Based on information the Individual
provided during his HRP evaluation, the Occupational Psychologist concluded the Individual had
“difficulties with alcohol and sobered up only for [his HRP] evaluations.” Ex. 8 at 62. In May
2024, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the Individual
requesting additional details about his alcohol consumption. Ex. 8.
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, 162-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
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s LOI responses, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who
conducted a two-and-a-half-hour clinical interview of the Individual in June 2024 and issued a
report (the Report) of her findings. Ex. 8. Based on her evaluation of the Individual, the DOE
Psychologist opined that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR), for a diagnosis
of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, in Early Remission, and that the Individual had not
shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 67.
In August 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 6–7. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
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 the Individual and the DOE Psychologist.
See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0004 (Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted 10
exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10. The Individual submitted three exhibits, marked as
Exhibits A through C.
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 informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 5.
Under Guideline G, “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 a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker)
of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(d). In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE
Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met the DSM-5-TR criteria for AUD, Moderate, in Early
Remission, and that he had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at
5.
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
3
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
In approximately October 2023, the Individual was interviewed by the Occupational Psychologist,
as part of an annual HRP evaluation conducted by his employer. Ex. 8 at 62. During his interview,
the Individual reported that he would refrain from consuming alcohol “for the one or two months
before and during” his annual HRP fitness tests and weapons qualifications, which were usually
administered within one or two months of each other. Id. at 64. The Occupational Psychologist
was concerned about the Individual’s alcohol use and that he would stop drinking “only for his
evaluations,” so in December 2023, the Individual was ordered to undergo a Phosphotidylethanol
(PEth)3 test to detect his alcohol consumption. Id. at 63–64. The results of the Individual’s PEth
test were positive, at level of 803 ng/mL. Id. at 64; Ex. C at 1–2.
In January 2024, the Occupational Psychologist recommended that the Individual abstain from
consuming alcohol, participate in random alcohol testing, and receive alcohol treatment from an
Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP). Ex. 2 at 12; Ex. 8 at 64.
In his May 2024 LOI, the Individual reported that the last time he consumed alcohol was on
January 8, 2024, at which time he consumed three 12-ounce cans of beer. Ex. 7 at 55. He also
reported that he was undergoing alcohol treatment. Id. at 52. On February 9, 2024, the Individual
enrolled in an IOP, and he submitted a Certificate of Completion, indicating he completed 90 hours
of alcohol treatment on May 15, 2024. Ex. 2 at 18. On February 22, 2024, the Individual completed
a six-week Alcohol Awareness Class, which was provided through his employer’s Employee
Assistance Program (EAP). Ex. 8 at 52–53; Ex. 2 at 19. In February 2024, the Individual underwent
a second PEth test, the results of which were positive, at a level of 22 ng/mL. Ex. 8 at 64. The
Individual also underwent PEth testing in April and May of 2024, the results of which were
negative. Ex. C at 5–8.
3 The Report indicates that PEth is “a metabolite of ethyl alcohol,” which can only be made when ethyl alcohol reacts
with a compound in red blood cells. Ex. 8 at 65. PEth can be detected in the blood “for about 28 days after alcohol
consumption has ceased.” Id. “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol
consumption.” Id. at 79.
4
During his May 2024 psychological evaluation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he
would refrain from consuming alcohol for the “one or two months before and during” his annual
HRP fitness and weapons qualifications to “feel more collected.” Ex. 8 at 63. He stated that on
May 15, 2024, he completed the IOP. Id. at 64. He stated the IOP’s group sessions helped him
recognize that he “kinda messed up,” and seeing other people in the class helped remind him of
his goal to reduce his alcohol consumption. Id. at 65. He also told the DOE Psychologist that since
January 8, 2024, he has abstained from alcohol. Id. at 62. As part of his evaluation, the Individual
underwent PEth testing in June 2024, the results of which were negative for the presence of
alcohol. Id. at 79.
In July 2024, the DOE Psychologist contacted the Occupational Psychologist about the
Individual’s alcohol consumption. Ex. 8 at 62. The Occupational Psychologist told the DOE
Psychologist that the Individual’s February 2024 PEth test result suggested that he “consumed
small amounts of alcohol in the month of January [2024],” even though he claimed he abstained
during most of that month. Id. at 64. The Occupational Psychologist also told the DOE
Psychologist that the IOP diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Abuse, uncomplicated, moderate,
and the IOP reported to her that the Individual “did well in the program.” Id. at 64.
The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Moderate, in Early Remission. Ex. 8
at 66. She found that although the Individual’s February 2024 PEth test indicated that he consumed
alcohol during January 2024, after claiming he abstained for most of that month, his three
subsequent negative PEth tests indicated that he was in early remission from his AUD. Id. The
DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual had not yet received enough treatment to demonstrate
rehabilitation or reformation from his AUD, but he was “working towards” it. Id. The DOE
Psychologist recommended the Individual receive additional treatment, by attending “[Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA)], other peer support group meetings[s] or [a] peer support specialist weekly for
a minimum period of [12] months.” Id. at 67. The DOE Psychologist also wrote that, if the
Individual chooses a path of reformation, he should “continue PEth testing every four to six weeks,
which will buttress his abstinence from alcohol as well as provide objective and scientific evidence
of his sobriety.” Id. The Report also indicates the Individual’s “[participation] in treatment and
support should continue for 12 months as of the beginning of his IOP on [February 9, 2024].” Id.
The Individual submitted evidence that he underwent PEth testing in August 2024, September
2024, October 2024, November 2024, December 2024, and January 2025, and the results of each
test were negative for the presence of alcohol. Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. C at 9–16.
At the hearing, the Individual attributed his December 2023 PEth test result to consuming “hard
liquor” while on vacation and while spending time with his family. Tr. at 11–12, 22–23. He stated
the Occupational Psychologist was concerned about his alcohol use and recommended that he
abstain from alcohol. Id. at 26. He testified that he read the Report, including the DOE
Psychologist’s treatment recommendations for his AUD, Moderate. Id. at 13. He explained that he
did not following the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation to enroll in AA or some other peer
support group, or see a peer support specialist, because he believed his completion of an Alcohol
Awareness Class and an IOP “were good enough” to resolve his AUD. Id. at 14.
The Individual testified that the Alcohol Awareness Class was an educational program that taught
him how alcohol affects the body and how it can affect one’s judgment. Tr. at 14. He explained
5
that the IOP required that he attend classes four days a week: group classes three days a week, and
individual meetings with a counselor, one day a week. Id. at 27. During two of the group classes,
the Individual would watch videos, and everyone would sit in a circle and talk about their alcohol
use. Id. at 27. During the third group class, the Individual would participate in projects related to
alcohol consumption, such as discussing the amount of alcohol in a typical shot or a glass of wine.
Id. at 27. He explained that he would meet with a counselor on Fridays, for one hour. Id. at 14–15.
He initially did not think he had an issue with alcohol, but the IOP made him “rethink” about his
relationship with alcohol. Id. at 15.
The Individual further testified that he has abstained from consuming alcohol since January 8,
2024, and he does not intend to drink alcohol in the future. Tr. at 15, 22. He stated that during the
past year, he has attended birthday parties and gone on vacation, and he did not consume alcohol.
Id. at 15. Since he has stopped drinking, he no longer feels “groggy in the morning,” and he has
more energy. Id. at 16. He does not keep any alcohol in his home. Id. at 16. In November 2024,
during a family dinner, people were drinking alcohol around him, but rather than drink alcohol
himself, he drank sodas instead. Id. at 17. He also explained that he lives with someone who
supports his choice to abstain from alcohol, talks to him daily about any issues that may tempt him
to resume drinking, and does not bring alcohol into the home. Id. at 18. Instead of going out to
drink alcohol, he spends more time watching television and playing video games, and he spends
more time with his family. Id. at 30.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the Individual’s testimony and reviewing the
Individual’s exhibits, she believes the Individual is adequately reformed from his AUD, Moderate.
Tr. at 34. She explained that she recommended the Individual enroll in AA, or some other peer
support group, because abstaining from alcohol is difficult for a person to do on their own, and
having the support of a community of people that are also sober “enhances and entrenches”
positive behaviors, so they can become habits. Id. at 36. She stated that although the Individual
did not participate in AA, he has shown that he has developed the behaviors to sustain his
abstinence, in the form of PEth testing, and has thereby demonstrated reformation from his AUD.
Id. at 36–37. She explained that the DSM-5-TR requires 12 months of abstinence from alcohol
before a person can be deemed to be in sustained remission from their AUD. Id. at 35. She stated
that from February 9, 2024, the date the Individual enrolled in an IOP, to the date of the hearing,
the Individual has shown he is “on the correct path,” and is two weeks away from meeting the
clinical definition of being in sustained remission from his AUD, Moderate. Id. at 35, 37.
V. Analysis
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
6
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 security concerns
related to his alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(b) and ¶ 23(d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The
Individual admitted that he would refrain from consuming alcohol one or two months before his
annual HRP evaluations so he could satisfy his employer’s work requirements. After meeting with
the Occupational Psychologist, he realized his behavior was a problem. The Individual submitted
evidence that he followed the recommendations of the Occupational Psychologist and successfully
completed a six-week Alcohol Awareness Class, and a 90-hour IOP, between February and May
2024, in order to address his alcohol consumption. The Individual also submitted nine negative
PEth tests, dated from April 2024 to January 2025, which demonstrates a clear and established
pattern of abstinence from alcohol. The Individual’s efforts to overcome his maladaptive alcohol
use were such that by June 2024, the DOE Psychologist determined he was in early remission from
his AUD, Moderate. The Individual also testified that he does not intend to drink alcohol in the
future and that he lives with someone who supports his choice to abstain from alcohol.
Furthermore, I am persuaded by the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that although the Individual did
not enroll in AA, or some other peer support program, the Individual’s nine months of negative
PEth tests show he has developed the behaviors to sustain his abstinence, and that he is reformed
from his AUD, Moderate, without having needed the peer support provided by AA or another
similar program. The DOE Psychologist also opined that the Individual was two weeks away from
meeting the clinical definition of being in sustained remission from his AUD, Moderate. Therefore,
I conclude that the Individual has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, has
provided sufficient evidence he successfully completed a treatment program, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of abstinence sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23 (b), (d).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all of the relevant information, both favorable and
unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony
and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the security concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns.
Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
7
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