PSH-25-0007

*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-25-0007
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 8, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Erin C. Weinstock, 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
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 by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 7.2 In July 2023 the Individual completed a Questionnaire for
National Security Positions (QNSP) in which he disclosed several alcohol-related incidents,
including one incident that led to hospitalization and another that resulted in his being arrested for
a car accident that occurred while he was under the influence of alcohol. Ex. 10 at 98, 100. As a
result of the Individual’s disclosures, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued the Individual a
Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual completed on March 18, 2024. Ex. 7. The LSO
asked him to complete a second LOI (second LOI) on March 19, 2024, in which the Individual
disclosed that he regularly consumed two to eight standard drinks per day on Fridays and
Saturdays. Ex. 6. After receipt of his responses, the LSO requested that the Individual undergo a
psychiatric evaluation in July 2024, by a DOE-consultant Psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist), which
resulted in a finding that the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
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 References to the Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in
the top right corner of each exhibit page.
- 2 -
Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD),
moderate, in sustained remission. Ex. 8 at 63. The DOE Psychiatrist also determined that the
Individual “habitually consume[s] alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,” and there is not
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from this concern. Id.
The 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 5. 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.
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 eleven exhibits (Ex. 1–11). The Individual submitted nine exhibits (Ex. A–I). The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of five additional witnesses.
Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0007 (Tr.). The LSO called the DOE Psychiatrist to
testify. Id.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline G, under which the LSO raised the security concerns, relates to security risks arising
from excessive alcohol consumption. “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 include: “alcohol-related incidents away from work,” “habitual or
binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,” and “diagnosis . . . of alcohol
use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c)‒(d). In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE
Psychiatrist’s June 2024 diagnosis that the Individual suffered from AUD, moderate, in sustained
remission,3 as well as the incidences of habitually or binge consuming alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment that the Individual admitted to in his psychiatric evaluation and LOIs. Ex. 1 at
5. The LSO also cited the Individual’s underage drinking citations, his 2014 arrest for driving
while intoxicated by alcohol, and his 2015 alcohol-related involuntary hospitalization. Id. at 5–6.
The aforementioned allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
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
3 The LSO stated that “[t]here was not adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation” after its assertion that the
Individual had been diagnosed with AUD, moderate, in sustained remission. Ex. 1 at 5. In fact, the DOE Psychologist
concluded that the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation from his habitual consumption of
alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Ex. 8 at 63. As such, I will consider this to be the security concern alleged
by the LSO, and not that the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation from her AUD diagnosis.
- 3 -
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 their 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. at
§ 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
Between 2007 and 2008, the Individual received three citations for underaged drinking. Ex. 6 at
32.
In 2014, the Individual went to a bar with a friend where he consumed eighteen alcoholic beverages
over the course of approximately five hours. Ex. 11 at 169. After consuming the drinks, the
Individual decided to drive home because he did not feel safe walking. Id. While driving home,
the Individual hit another car and was eventually arrested and charged with driving under the
influence. Id. The charges went to trial where the Individual was found guilty and sentenced to a
one-year program that included alcohol education classes, personal counseling, probation for a
year, and a year-long suspension of his driver’s license. Id. The Individual completed all of the
requirements of this program. Id. After this incident, the Individual did not consume alcohol for
about one year, other than a single shot of liquor for a roommate’s birthday. Ex. 6 at 30.
In 2015, the Individual attended a concert where he consumed 500 mL of liquor, two mixed drinks,
and at least two beers. Ex. 7 at 39. As a result of this consumption, he, in his own words, “became
drunk and disorderly.” Id. at 38. Law enforcement was called, and the Individual told them that he
was having suicidal thoughts because he “was scared of being arrested,” and he was subsequently
transported to a local hospital. Id. He remained at the hospital overnight for observation and was
released the next day. Id. at 39.
In his second LOI in March 2024, the Individual disclosed that his typical pattern of alcohol
consumption was to drink on Friday and Saturday nights at home, drinking between two and eight
standard drinks over a six-hour period each of those nights. Ex. 6 at 29. He stated that this had
been his pattern since approximately December 2022, and, prior to that date, he would also
typically also consume alcohol on one or two weekday nights each week. Id. The Individual also
said that he did not feel alcohol had any impacts on his professional life, but he felt that alcohol
made him “stay home more often than other people do.” Id. at 31.
- 4 -
As a result of his disclosures in his QNSP and LOIs, the Individual underwent a psychiatric
evaluation on May 4, 2024. Ex. 8. As part of his evaluation, the Individual also underwent a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test4 in May 2024. Id. at 59. The PEth test came back positive for
alcohol use, at a level of 408 ng/mL. Id.
After the Individual completed the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report in which he
concluded that the Individual met the criteria for AUD, moderate, in sustained remission. Id. at 63.
In a follow up letter, the DOE Psychiatrist explained that according to the DSM-5, a person can be
in remission from an AUD and still consume alcohol so long as their drinking is not “leading to
clinically significant impairment.” Id. at 50. Although the DOE Psychiatrist found that the
Individual’s AUD was in sustained remission, he also found that the Individual habitually
consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and that there was not adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation from that concern. Id. at 63. In order for the Individual to show
rehabilitation and reformation, the DOE Psychiatrist stated that the Individual should: (1) show
some desire to enter into treatment; (2) engage in outpatient treatment of moderate intensity such
as weekly meetings of Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or individual counseling with a counselor
experienced in treating substance use disorders; and (3) maintain sobriety for at least the duration
of treatment, which should be six months. Id. at 63–64.
The Individual testified at the hearing that he had not consumed any alcohol since August 10,
2024. Tr. at 75. In support of his claimed abstinence from alcohol, the Individual provided five
negative PEth tests dated October 16, 2024, November 5, 2024, December 6, 2024, January 3,
2025, and April 11, 2025.5 Ex. F; Ex. I. The Individual also underwent a PEth test that returned a
“test not performed” result dated September 20, 2024.6 Ex. F. He also submitted five negative
ethyl glucuronide (EtG) tests that he completed on August 20, 2024, August 23, 2024, August 26,
2024, August 30, 2024, and September 5, 2024. Ex. E. At the hearing, the Individual explained he
only took EtG tests in August 2024 because he knew that those tests would show that he had not
been consuming alcohol in the three to four days prior to the test, while a PEth test would have
included the time period in July and the beginning of August when he had still been consuming
alcohol. Tr. at 98–99. He further testified that he intends to continue to abstain from consuming
alcohol in the future. Id. at 76.
The Individual stated that after he learned that he was going through the administrative review
process, he reached out to his employer’s employee assistance program (EAP) in order to get a
referral to see a therapist or counselor. Id. Through the EAP, he was referred to his therapist, who
he began to see on a weekly basis in late August 2024. Id. at 77–78. At these sessions, the
4 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 8 at
65.
5 The Individual’s hearing was originally scheduled for January 9, 2025. Due to the National Day of Mourning and
closure of the federal government on January 9, 2025, the Individual’s hearing was rescheduled for April 2025. When
the hearing was rescheduled, the Individual intended to get further PEth testing, but forgot due to a busy schedule at
work. Tr. at 109.
6 The DOE Psychiatrist explained that, in his experience, a PEth test that returns a “test not performed” or “TNP”
result means that some sort of error occurred when the sample was being transported to the lab that was supposed to
perform the test rather than the person being tested having been at fault for the discrepancy. Tr. at 129.
- 5 -
Individual and his therapist have worked on dealing with the Individual’s anxiety, his relationship
with alcohol, and how the Individual’s relationship with alcohol is affected by his anxiety. Id. at
78. Prior to beginning his sessions with his therapist, the Individual used drinking as “a coping
mechanism to deal with [his] anxiety.” Id. The therapist has helped the Individual to develop
techniques to manage anxiety, including the regular use of meditation and other mindfulness
techniques. Id. at 79. Although he had gone to counseling in the past as a result of his 2014 alcohol-
related incident, the previous counseling did not connect the Individual’s drinking habits and his
anxiety like his sessions with his current therapist do. Id. at 108. In addition to his sessions with
his therapist, the Individual also took an alcohol awareness class offered through his employer’s
EAP. Id. at 94; see also Ex. D (showing the Individual’s class attendance records); Ex. G (showing
a certificate of completion for the class).
Beginning in October 2024, the Individual began practicing “walking meditation” while on his
daily hikes, which he said helps him practice mindful awareness while also establishing a habit of
regular exercise. Tr. at 79. He also uses a meditation app every morning to do a series of three
guided meditations to help him to set his mindset for the day. Id. at 79–81. The Individual also
uses these skills to deal with triggers in his daily life, allowing him to deal with feelings and events
that previously would have derailed his daily life. Id. at 81–82. The Individual testified that using
these skills has allowed him to cope with his stress and anxiety without consuming alcohol. Id. at
83. In addition to his therapy techniques, the Individual has also started playing the drums again
and going to the gym with a friend to lift weights. Id. at 85–86. He participates in regular social
activities like trivia and game nights with his friends. Id. at 86. At some of these social events,
other people present have consumed alcohol, but the Individual has not had trouble not consuming
alcohol in those settings. Id. at 92. He likes to drink tea or flavored sparkling water at these events
instead of consuming alcohol. Id. at 111. All of his friends at these social events are supportive of
his sobriety. Id. at 93. The Individual also testified that his family, coworkers, and therapist are all
a part of his support network. Id. The Individual feels that he has many people that he would feel
comfortable talking about alcohol with if he needed to do so. Id. at 110.
The Individual also said that going through the administrative review process motivated him to
make improvements to his life and lifestyle much more quickly than he had been doing previously.
Id. at 95. He explained that he is very happy with his life now, he feels better than he used to, and
he feels that maintaining his sobriety is “very important” to helping him achieve his career goals.
Id. at 93, 102. He said he did not understand how much of a problem alcohol was in his life until
he “committed to being sober.” Id. at 96.
The Individual’s therapist testified that he is a licensed therapist who has been practicing for
approximately forty-five years. Id. at 13. For about the last fifteen years, he has worked with people
who have problems with alcohol or other drugs, including running an intensive outpatient
treatment program for people with substance use or addiction problems. Id. at 14. The therapist
has been conducting weekly sessions with the Individual since August 2024. Id. at 15. When the
Individual first started therapy, the therapist said that the Individual “felt forced” to give up alcohol
when he did not want to, but over time he realized that he had a problem with alcohol. Id. at 25–
26. The therapist testified that the Individual has been very cooperative and that they have focused
on anxiety-related skills as the Individual’s anxiety was “really underlying the alcohol use.” Id. at
15. The therapist worked with the Individual on calming his anxiety, improving his communication
- 6 -
skills, and learning how his relationship with alcohol became a coping mechanism for his anxiety.
Id. at 16. The Individual and the therapist spent a significant amount of time working on lifestyle
skills like mindfulness and how the Individual can use mindfulness to manage his physical health
and mental health while navigating his life. Id. at 17–18. The Individual has also told the therapist
about new things he does in his life in place of consuming alcohol like hiking, working out,
meditating, and drumming. Id. at 18. The Individual has indicated that these changes to his life
and his therapy have caused him to have more energy and motivation in life, have improved his
sleep, and have caused him to feel healthier. Id. at 20.
The therapist stated that to the best of his knowledge, the Individual has been abstinent from
alcohol since he began seeing the therapist. Id. at 20–21. The therapist explained that he would
likely be able to tell if the Individual had resumed consuming alcohol because he builds openness
about relapse into his treatment plans and tells his patients that relapse is a part of treatment rather
than a failure. Id. at 29. He also believes he would be able to tell by observing a patient’s
“[b]ehavior, attitude, thoughts, feelings, [and] their whole personality.” Id. He also said that the
Individual has indicated that he does not want to “include alcohol in his life again.” Id. at 20. The
therapist indicated that he feels that over time the Individual has recognized that his alcohol
consumption had a bigger impact on his life than he had realized. Id. at 22. The therapist
characterized the Individual’s prognosis as excellent. Id. at 24.
The Individual’s mother is in contact with him on a weekly basis, talking with him over text
message, phone calls, and FaceTime. Id. at 42. She explained that the Individual told her that he
had stopped consuming alcohol sometime in the middle of August 2024. Id. at 43. She has seen
him in-person on at least five occasions since he stopped consuming alcohol. Id. Since he stopped
consuming alcohol, the Individual’s mother says that the Individual has become more outgoing
and positive, has been spending more time hiking and doing other outdoor activities, and has lost
weight. Id. at 44. She testified that the Individual has been to several family gatherings in the eight
months prior to the hearing where other people consumed alcohol or offered him alcohol. Id. at
45. The Individual did not consume alcohol on any of these occasions and told his family members
that he was no longer consuming alcohol and that he was not planning on consuming alcohol in
the future. Id. The mother also said that the Individual had shared that he liked his therapist and
that he really enjoyed the mediations that he has been doing. Id. at 47. She stated that she and his
father were supportive of the Individual’s sobriety, and also that he had said that his friends who
live near him had been supportive as well. Id. at 44, 47–48.
The Individual’s friend met him about two years ago when they both began working at the DOE
site. Id. at 60–61. Once or twice a week, they participate in social activities together like game
nights or trivia nights. Id. at 61–62. The friend testified that the Individual stopped consuming
alcohol around August 2024, but prior to that he would see the Individual consume alcohol at
social events. Id. at 62–63. Since August 2024, he has seen the Individual in situations where other
people were consuming alcohol, and the Individual did not consume any alcohol. Id. at 63. The
friend said that since the Individual stopped consuming alcohol, the Individual has seemed to have
increased enthusiasm and has seemed healthier. Id. at 64. The friend is supportive of the
Individual’s continued sobriety and said the Individual has told him that he does not plan to
consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 64–65.
- 7 -
The Individual’s supervisor testified that he met the Individual about two and a half years prior to
the hearing and that he interacts with the Individual almost every day at work. Id. at 33. The
supervisor said that that the Individual is a dependable, capable, and trustworthy employee. Id. at
34–35. He also stated that the Individual had told him that he had stopped consuming alcohol and,
consequently, had lost weight. Id. at 37. The Individual’s work mentor also testified on his behalf.
Id. at 53. The work mentor stated that he had known the Individual for a little over two years and
that they talk on an almost daily basis. Id. The work mentor described the Individual as extremely
reliable, as trustworthy, and as a person with good judgment. Id. at 55. He also explained that that
the Individual had told him that he was no longer consuming any alcohol. Id. at 56.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist explained that at the time of the evaluation, the Individual
did not have an active alcohol use disorder7 because he had no clinically significant impairment,
but the Individual did have a problem with habitual or binge consumption of alcohol. Id. at 120.
As to the Individual’s recovery, the DOE Psychiatrist explained that he found the Individual’s use
of meditation and related practices to be a very good coping mechanism. Id. at 124–25. He stated
that he found the Individual’s eight-month period of abstinence to be “pretty impressive” and that
he thought the Individual was “a poster child for the benefits of abstinence” because of the
improvements to his physical health, his anxiety disorder, and his mood. Id. at 126. The DOE
Psychiatrist testified that the Individual had followed all of his treatment recommendations, and,
in his opinion, the Individual had shown rehabilitation and reformation from his habitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Id. He also said that the Individual had
a “good” prognosis for continued sobriety on a good, fair, poor scale. Id. at 127. The DOE
Psychiatrist also noted that while he thought lifetime abstinence would be a good clinical
recommendation for the Individual, he had only recommended that the Individual show six months
of abstinence in order to show rehabilitation, and, in his view, the Individual had shown eight
months of abstinence. Id. Finally, he noted that he found the Individual to be generally credible
because his self-reported alcohol consumption was consistent with his PEth test results. Id. at 130.
V. ANALYSIS
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline G through the following
conditions:
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 maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence
of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
7 In his testimony, the DOE Psychiatrist explained that consumption of alcohol alone is not a diagnostic factor under
the DSM-5 and that his concern was that the Individual was habitually or binge drinking to the point of impaired
judgment. Tr. at 120.
- 8 -
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.
Here, the Individual has undertaken significant steps to resolve his problems with alcohol. He
admitted that his alcohol consumption had been problematic in the past, and he has told his support
network that he has stopped drinking and why. Since receiving the SSC, he has begun going to
weekly therapy, started hiking regularly, started a meditation practice, and increased his social
activities. By his own account, all of these activities have helped him to cope with his anxieties in
a way that is healthier than consuming alcohol. Further, the EtG tests and PEth tests corroborated
his testimony that, from August 2024 to January 2025 and in March 2025, the Individual did not
consume alcohol in accordance with the recommendation of the DOE Psychiatrist and that of his
own therapist. The credible testimony of his mother, his friend, and his therapist further support
the Individual’s contention that he has not consumed any alcohol since August 2024. The
Individual’s openness and honesty about his past alcohol consumption make his claims about his
recovery even more convincing. Therefore, the Individual has mitigated the security concerns
pursuant to mitigating condition (b).
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline G.
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 set
forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined 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.
Erin C. Weinstock
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals