PSH-25-0010

*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 15, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0010
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 25, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires possession of a security
clearance. In March 2024, the Individual informed his supervisor that he had an “alcohol problem.”
As a result, the Individual was interviewed by a DOE site Human Reliability Program (HRP)
psychologist. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) received the above information and requested
that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) regarding
alcohol use. Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual by letter (Notification Letter) that it
possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a
security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security
Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under
Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter. I subsequently conducted an administrative review hearing.
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 -
At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of three
witnesses. The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. The Individual submitted
twenty-nine exhibits, marked Exhibits A through CC. The LSO submitted eight exhibits, marked
Exhibits 1 through 8.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines as the basis for concern regarding the Individual’s eligibility to possess a security
clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 5. Guideline G provides that “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often
leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise
questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21.
Conditions that could raise a security concern include “alcohol-related incidents away from work,
such as driving while under the influence . . . or other incidents of concern, regardless of the
frequency of the individual’s alcohol use . . .”; “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the
point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use
disorder . . .”; and “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use disorder . . . .” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c)–
(d). The SSC first cited the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion in her June 2024 psychological
evaluation report (Report) that the Individual met the criteria under the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), Fifth Edition, Text Revision, for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use
Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.3 Ex. 1 at 5.
The SSC also listed the following information: the Individual admitted to having an alcohol
problem that had caused years of declining work performance, absenteeism, and tardiness; the
Individual disclosed that he had consumed “a half gallon of vodka” each week for the last ten
years; and the Individual admitted that his alcohol use had impacted his family relationships and
reported that his spouse recently excluded him from their home in March 2024 after she learned
that he had continued to consume alcohol despite his promise to abstain. Id. The cited information
justifies 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 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 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
2 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner of
each exhibit page.
3 While the SSC states that the DOE Psychologist relied upon the DSM, Fifth Edition, the Report instead indicates that
the opinion is based on the DSM, Fifth Edition, Text Revision, “which is the current diagnostic standard in the United
States.” Ex. 6 at 26.
- 3 -
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 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. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In March 2024, the Individual told his supervisor that he had an “alcohol problem.” Ex. 5 at 22.
That incident resulted in the creation of an Incident Report, which noted that the Individual was
already on probation due to “longstanding attendance and tardiness problems” which were “being
addressed through Labor Relations.” Id. at 22. According to the Incident Report, the Individual
also told his supervisor that he was “facing marital problems” and his “attendance concerns are
directly related to alcohol use.” Id. After reporting his problematic alcohol consumption, the
Individual underwent an evaluation by an HRP psychologist. Id. According to the HRP evaluation
report, the Individual stated that he had hit “rock bottom” and his wife asked him to leave their
home as a result of his alcohol use. Id. The Individual also reported that he had been consuming
“a fifth of vodka every weekend.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist’s June 2024 Report includes the following information. After an
evaluation, the HRP psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, and referred him
to inpatient treatment. Ex. 6 at 25. The Individual enrolled in inpatient treatment in March 2024.
Id. at 28. The medical records from inpatient treatment indicate that the Individual admitted
consuming a half gallon of vodka over four days a week instead of the “fifth” of vodka he
previously reported during the HRP evaluation. Id. at 28–29 (noting that the former “is the
equivalent of . . . 40 standard servings of vodka”). The Individual also reported that his wife had
expressed concern regarding his alcohol consumption. Id. at 27. Although he promised her he
would abstain, he continued to secretly consume alcohol in the weeks leading up to March 2024.
Id. at 27.
The DOE Psychologist reported that the Individual completed the inpatient program in April 2024
and then enrolled in an “intensive outpatient program” (IOP), which he completed the following
month. Id. at 28. The Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist that he had been abstaining
from alcohol since March 15, 2024. Id. At the time of the evaluation, the Individual underwent a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test to examine his recent alcohol use.4 Id. at 29. The PEth test results
4 The PEth laboratory report states that PEth levels in excess of the screening threshold of 20 ng/mL“are considered
evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 6 at 49.
- 4 -
were negative, which, according to the DOE Psychologist, demonstrated that for the month
preceding the evaluation the Individual had “been able to maintain abstinence.” Id. However, the
DOE Psychologist expressed concern that the Individual was still in early recovery at the time of
the evaluation and that the Individual “appear[ed] to be relying on himself to maintain his
sobriety.” Id. at 32. The DOE Psychologist also noted concern that the Individual was not “leaning
on his friends or family for support, nor [was] he meaningfully engaged in a peer support group.”
Id. at 31–32 (noting that, for example, the Individual had not discussed his treatment with his wife
or any of his friends). The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual was “not addressing
the emotions and stressors that trigger his alcohol use, and he [had] not developed coping
mechanisms to replace consuming alcohol to excess.” Id. Consequently, the DOE Psychologist
diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe. Id. at 32. The DOE Psychologist opined that to
demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation from AUD the Individual should remain abstinent for
twelve months, complete at least two PEth tests, and participate in weekly AA or a similar program
during that period. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual’s AA sponsor testified regarding the Individual’s progress in AA.
The sponsor explained that the Individual asked him to be his sponsor on an unrecalled date in
2024, the sponsor agreed, and they continue to meet with one another approximately once a week.
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0010 (Tr.) at 13–14. The sponsor explained that
his role has been to guide the Individual through the AA program steps, which includes reading
materials and discussing “intimate emotions” related to work and relationships. Id. at 15–16. The
sponsor testified that the Individual appears to have taken his recovery “to heart.” Id. at 18.
The Individual’s friend, who is also a former supervisor, testified that he had not observed the
Individual consume alcohol since the Individual entered treatment. Id. at 35, 39–40 (recalling, for
example, no indication that the Individual consumed alcohol during the several days their families
spent together in October 2024).
The Individual’s wife testified and confirmed that the Individual had been sober since entering
treatment in March 2024. Id. at 55–56. She observed a complete turnaround in the Individual’s
behavior, and they have removed alcohol from their social outings. Id. at 56–57. She also testified
that the Individual’s relationship with their children has improved as a result of his changed
behavior, and the family has embraced his sobriety. Id. at 58. She described their family as a “good
support system,” which she believes is part of the reason the Individual has “been so successful.”5
Id. She described how they have organized their schedules to successfully integrate and support
the Individual’s participation in AA. Id. at 78. She observed the Individual’s “walls break down”
as a result of going through treatment, and she testified that he has become more open, vulnerable,
and honest. Id. at 72. The Individual told her that alcohol can no longer be a part of his life. Id. at
85–86.
The Individual testified that he does not intend to consume alcohol again, and, through AA, he
learned that success requires daily focus on maintaining abstinence. Id. at 95–96. He described
integrating three AA meetings into his weekly routine while continuing to meet his work and
parenting obligations. Id. at 97–98. He stated that he enjoys the routine of attending AA meetings,
5 The wife also testified that their extended family, including siblings and their spouses, have “all been super
supportive.” Tr. at 60.
- 5 -
he looks forward to them, and he has developed friendships with other AA participants. Id. at 107.
He testified that he appreciates learning from AA participants who have significantly longer
periods of sobriety than his own. Id. at 101. He also testified that he had established a “home
group” in AA, where he can be more open and vulnerable than in the other AA groups he attends.
Id. at 99–100.
The Individual acknowledged that, prior to March 2024, he had been addressing his “repressed
emotions and feelings” by “dumping vodka on top of it and . . . pushing it down.” Id. at 105. He
realized that he hit “rock bottom” when he met with the HRP psychologist. Id. at 108. He
recognized that he was “tired of fighting” and needed “help.” Id. at 109. He testified that during
inpatient treatment and the IOP he learned “the ability to be vulnerable and express” himself and
the value of a support group composed of people who understand the struggle of addiction. Id. at
113. He testified that he now communicates his feelings to his wife and in AA, and he also began
seeing a therapist. Id. at 105. He testified that therapy provided “an unbiased outlet” and “safer
place” to share personal information and “find different paths of problem solving.” Id. at 136.
According to an Assessment and Treatment Summary from the Individual’s therapist, the
Individual began therapy in July 2024 to support his sobriety. Ex. W. The Individual confirmed
that his family immediately provided positive support once he sought treatment. Tr. at 109. He
also explained that therapy provides the opportunity to share his emotions and think through how
to resolve them without turning to alcohol. Id. at 121. Lastly, the Individual testified that he has
been sober since March 15, 2024. Id. at 110.
The record includes the following exhibits. The Individual submitted a letter from the inpatient
treatment provider indicating that the Individual enrolled in March 2024 and successfully
completed the program in April 2024. Ex. A. The Individual also submitted a letter from the IOP
provider that indicates the Individual successfully completed the IOP at the end of April 2024. Ex.
B. In addition to the letters, the Individual provided four negative PEth test results spanning July
2024 to December 2024. Ex. E (September 13, 2024); Ex. G (September 26, 2024); Ex. I
(December 13, 2024); Ex. BB (July 10, 2024). The Individual testified that he independently
underwent these PEth tests “to fill in the gaps from . . . the [random] ones at work . . . .” Tr. at 130.
The records he submitted, however, indicate that the employer’s random testing did not include
PEth testing. See Ex. N (results from employer-administered random Breath Alcohol Tests and
drug tests indicating negative results between June 2024 to January 2025). Lastly, the Individual
submitted sign-in sheets that demonstrate he attended AA from August 2024 through January
2025. Ex. L (August through December); Ex. S (January).
The DOE Psychologist testified that, after evaluating the evidence of the Individual’s progress
since the evaluation, she concluded the Individual met the criteria for AUD, Severe, in early
remission. Id. at 149. She explained that the Individual’s AUD is considered early remission
instead of sustained remission because “he hasn’t reached that 12 month[] mark [of sobriety] yet.”
Id. at 149. However, she opined that the Individual would meet the criteria for AUD, in sustained
remission, in approximately six weeks. Id. at 151. Furthermore, she opined that the Individual had
“a favorable prognosis” and demonstrated “adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation”
based on the following reasons. Id. The Individual completed inpatient treatment and the IOP. Id.
The Individual is “just shy” of the recommended period of abstinence. Id. at 152. The Individual
provided objective data of his abstinence through the recommended PEth testing. Id. He regularly
attended AA and provided signed records to document his attendance. Id. He established an AA
- 6 -
“home group” and secured an AA sponsor. Id. And he established a support system. Id. at 153.
The DOE Psychologist expressed being “really encouraged” by the Individual “embrac[ing] and
involving his family” in his recovery, which strengthened the prognosis. Id. at 153.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(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.
I find that ¶ 23(b) applies to resolve the Guideline G concerns. The record establishes that the
Individual acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use by acknowledging that his history of alcohol
use was problematic. He self-reported the problem to his supervisor and his testimony
demonstrates that he has been candid in discussing his challenges with his wife, family, sponsor,
and treatment providers. He also expressed an understanding that he had been using alcohol to
bury his emotions. Additionally, there is significant evidence in the record that demonstrates the
Individual took substantial action to overcome his problem in accordance with treatment
recommendations. He followed the HRP psychologist’s recommendations by enrolling in and
completing inpatient treatment and an IOP. He demonstrated that he made significant lifestyle
changes to support his recovery, including continuing therapy, attending AA, working with an AA
sponsor, and engaging his family to support his efforts. Furthermore, the DOE Psychologist
explicitly stated that the Individual followed all of the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations by
regularly participating in AA for the preceding six months, remaining abstinent for just under a
year, and providing PEth test results to objectively document his abstinence. Further still, the
Individual obtained treatment from a therapist to support his sobriety, which demonstrates effort
beyond the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations. In light of the above evidence, I find persuasive
the Individual’s testimony that he intends to remain abstinent. I also find persuasive the opinion
- 7 -
of the DOE Psychologist that the Individual has a favorable prognosis and has rehabilitated and
reformed from his AUD. I therefore conclude that the Individual demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. Accordingly, I
find that the Individual has resolved the Guideline G concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of 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 SSC. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals