PSH-25-0021

*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: November 5, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0021
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 1, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be restored.
I. Background
In February 2016, the Individual completed and submitted a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP). Exhibit (Ex.) 24.2 In the QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he was charged
with Minor in Possession of Alcohol in March 2014. Id. at 342. The matter was expunged
following his completion of a pretrial intervention program (PTI). Id. As part of the investigation
process, the Individual was interviewed by an investigator in October 2016. Id. at 356. The
investigator asked the Individual about the March 2014 Minor in Possession charge, and he
explained that he was arrested when he was approached by an undercover law enforcement officer
who asked what he was drinking. Id. at 361. The Individual disclosed to the officer that his cup
contained alcohol and was accordingly arrested and taken to a detention center. Id. As part of the
PTI, he completed alcohol awareness courses, 100 hours of community service, attended
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, and participated in a prison tour. Id.
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.
2
During the same interview with the investigator, the Individual disclosed another Minor in
Possession of Alcohol charge that he had not disclosed in the 2016 QNSP. Id. In June 2012, at the
age of eighteen, the Individual was consuming alcohol at a party when a law enforcement officer
was dispatched to the location. Id. The law enforcement officer proceeded to write tickets to
underaged individuals who were consuming alcohol, issuing one of the tickets to the Individual.
Id. The Individual was given the opportunity to partake in an Alcohol Education Program (AEP),
which required him to complete fifty hours of community service and attend a Mothers Against
Drunk Driving (MADD) class. Id. at 361–62. Upon the completion of these items, the matter was
expunged from the Individual’s record. Id. at 361.
In January 2017, the Individual underwent a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) conducted by a
Security Specialist Ex. 23. During the PSI, the Individual confirmed the above alcohol-related
charges and the actions he subsequently took to address the matters. Id. at 140–42. During the PSI,
the Individual committed to not “drinking to excess in the future,” “obey[ing] all alcohol related
laws,” and refraining from drinking and driving. Id. at 154. The Individual was subsequently
granted an access authorization.
The record also indicated that the Individual was charged with Driving on Wrong Side of Road in
July 2014, which resulted in a $155 fine. Ex. 22 at 110. The Individual “was charged with Speeding
86-mph in a 65-mph zone [in August 2017.]” Ex. 11 at 45.
In July 2021, the Individual was charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI)/Driving with
Unlawful Alcohol Concentration (DUAC). Ex. 21 at 104–05; Ex. 15 at 59–61. Following this
incident, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual signed and submitted in September 2021. Ex. 18. The
Individual indicated that he drank three to four beers during a golf game, an additional two to three
beers at lunch, and three mixed drinks later in the day prior to his arrest. Id. at 78–79. He decided
to drive home, as he “thought [he] was good.” Id. at 78. In November 2021, the Individual
completed another QNSP, in which the Individual disclosed the July 2021 DUI and DUAC
charges. Ex. 25 at 247, 249. He underwent a subsequent Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI), which
was conducted by an investigator in November 2021. Ex. 24. Regarding the July 2021
DUI/DUAC, the Individual told the investigator that about an hour after consuming three to four
mixed drinks, he proceeded to a restaurant. Id. at 268–69. He sat in his car to eat the meal that he
purchased and was approached by law enforcement while in the parking lot of the restaurant and
asked for his driver’s license. Id. at 268. At that time, the Individual was told that he was being
arrested for DUI/DUAC. Id. The Individual learned that an employee at the restaurant had called
law enforcement officers “and told them that they believed [the Individual] was intoxicated.” Id.
The Individual told the investigator that he no longer drank alcohol and stated that he would “abide
by law and regulations.” Id. The criminal matter was resolved when, in mid-March 2022, the
Individual pled guilty to Driving with an Unlawful Concentration of .08 but less than .10 and “paid
a fine of $1,017[.]” Ex. 14 at 55–57. In March 2022, the Individual completed and submitted a
second LOI regarding the information he provided in the 2021 QNSP. Ex. 17.
In early February 2023, the Individual reported that he was charged with DUI and Failure to
Maintain Lane. Ex. 19 at 85, 87; Ex. 13 at 52–53. Upon stopping the Individual, the law
enforcement officer noted that the Individual exhibited slow, confused, and slurred speech and that
3
he had watery eyes. Ex. 19 at 86–87. The Individual failed field sobriety tests and refused to submit
to a blood test. Id. In March 2023, the Individual signed and submitted an LOI, in which he
disclosed information concerning the 2023 DUI. Ex. 16.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information that created
a substantial doubt regarding his continued eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), E (Personal
Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter
informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve
the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of his former DOE contractor supervisor,
his current manager, his former shift operations manager, and the owner of the court-ordered
treatment program that he is attending. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0021
(hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). He also submitted four exhibits marked as Exhibits A through D. The
DOE Counsel submitted twenty-four exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 24.
II. Notification Letter
Guideline G
Under Guideline G, “[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. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern is “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(a). Under
Guideline G, the LSO alleged that:
1. At the age of eighteen, in 2012, the Individual was charged with Minor in Possession of
Alcohol. Ex. 1 at 6.
2. The Individual was arrested and charged with Minor in Possession of Alcohol a second
time in 2014. Id.
3. The Individual was “arrested for DUI” when “a concerned citizen” called law enforcement
“after observing [the Individual] in an intoxicated state” in July 2021. Id. at 7.
4. In February 2023, the Individual was stopped by law enforcement personnel while
operating a motor vehicle and arrested for DUI and Failure to Maintain Lane. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
4
Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[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. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying security concern is the “violation of a written or recorded commitment made
by the individual to the employer as a condition of employment[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(f). Under Guideline
E, the LSO alleged that:
1. During a PSI in January 2017, the Individual made a commitment to DOE “not to drink
and drive, to not drink alcohol to excess, and to obey all alcohol related laws in the future.”
Ex. 1 at 6. In June 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged with DUI, “for which he
ultimately pled guilty to Driving with Alcohol Content .08 or Less [than .10].” Id.
2. The Individual again violated his commitments when he was arrested and charged with
DUI in February 2023. Id. Despite the aforementioned DUI, the Individual stated in his
March 2023 LOI response that he did not break his January 2017 commitments to DOE.
Id.
As indicated in the SSC, the Individual made the aforementioned commitments to the DOE. The
Individual was not employed by the DOE, but rather, a DOE contractor. Moreover, the record does
not show the commitments were made with the understanding that they were a condition of
employment. Accordingly, the Individual did not violate a written or recorded commitment to his
employer, the DOE contractor, as a condition of employment. Therefore, the allegations do not
constitute a concern under Guideline E at ¶ 16(f), and I do not address them further in this Decision.
Guideline J
Guideline J states that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness” and that, “[b]y its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30.
Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline J includes “[e]vidence . . . of
criminal conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or
convicted[.]” Id. at ¶ 31(b). Under Guideline J, the LSO alleged that:
1. All allegations made under Guideline G “are incorporated and apply herein.” Ex. 1 at 7.
2. The Individual was “charged with Driving on the Wrong Side of the Road and paid a fine
of $155[]” in June 2014. Id.
3. The Individual “was charged with Speeding 86-mph in a 65-mph zone [in August 2017.]”
Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline J is justified.
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
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 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 and Hearing Testimony
As indicated above, the Individual was charged with DUI and Failure to Maintain Lane in February
2023. The Individual indicated that prior to his 2023 DUI and Failure to Maintain Lane arrest, he
had worked a “[ten-hour] shift of overtime[,]” filed his taxes, then proceeded to meet his friends
for dinner where he consumed four light beers. Ex. 16 at 65; Tr. at 38–39. After dinner, he
proceeded to a second location “for several more hours” where he claimed he did not consume
alcohol after 9:00 pm. Ex. 16 at 65; Tr. at 37–38. The Individual went on to state that after leaving
the second location, he was stopped by law enforcement when he failed to maintain his lane “due
to complete exhaustion.” Ex. 16 at 65; Tr. at 39. The Individual was subject to a field sobriety test,
which consisted of reciting the alphabet backwards, which he attempted twice, but could not
complete. Ex. 16 at 66; Tr. at 41. The Individual stated in his March 2023 LOI response that he
“was accused of rejecting the test on the third attempt because [he] could not do it.” Ex. 16 at 66.
He indicated that because he could not complete the field sobriety test, he was arrested. Id.; Tr. at
41.
The police report regarding the matter indicates that when law enforcement stopped the Individual,
they observed the Individual “push the unlock button” when he was instructed to roll his window
down. Ex. 19 at 87. The report notes that the individual “appeared to be confused” and that his
“eyes were watery, dilated and red.” Id. Law enforcement personnel made note of the Individual’s
slurred speech, and the fact that he “had trouble maintaining his balance while walking and
standing” upon being asked to exit his vehicle. Id. Law enforcement personnel asked the Individual
to recite the alphabet “from the letter G to the letter S without singing.” Id. The report notes that
the Individual recited the alphabet from A to N, “then began mumbling the rest.” Id. He was then
6
asked to “count back from 86 to 65,” and after being given three opportunities to complete the task
successfully, he was unable to do so. Id. Then the Individual was given a “finger dexterity
exercise.” Id. Showing signs of intoxication following the sobriety tests, the Individual was placed
under arrest.3 Id.
The Individual testified that he has been permitted to participate in a diversion program to resolve
the 2023 DUI and Failure to Maintain Lane matters.4 Tr. at 12. The Individual began the program
in October 2024. Id. at 14. The counseling service employed by the program has crafted four
phases of treatment and an aftercare program. Ex. B at 3. Phase one requires that the Individual
“[r]emain alcohol and drug free[,]” attend two monthly court sessions, attend two group counseling
sessions every week, submit to random alcohol and drug tests, pay requisite fees, and comply with
any other requirement ordered by the judge. Id. Phase two of the program incorporates the
requirements of phase one but reduces the group counseling requirement to once per week. Id. It
also requires that participants attend an AA, or a similar program, meeting once per week. Id.
Individuals are given the option of attending either an in-person or virtual AA meeting. Tr. at 18.
At the time of the hearing, the Individual was in phase two of the program and attending virtual
AA meetings.5 Id. at 14, 27–29. Group counseling is “an hour and a half” and consists of cognitive
behavioral therapy and various workbooks. Id. at 17, 30–31. The treatment providers also “figure
out how [individuals] got to be where they are when they come in” and focus on treatment “they
need[.]” Id. In all phases, drug and alcohol testing is required every single time individuals attend
group counseling sessions. Id. at 16–17. The Individual submitted drug and alcohol urine test
results from October 2024 to March 2025. Ex. A; Ex. D; Tr. at 19–20. All the urine tests were
negative for alcohol, save for a positive October 2024 test.6 Ex. D.
The owner of the aforementioned counseling service testified that the Individual was “very
optimistic” when he first came to the program, as he understood that he “had made a mistake and
. . . wanted to gain as much as he [could] from” treatment. Tr. at 30. She indicated that the
3 At the hearing, the Individual denied any issues maintaining his balance, did not remember being asked to complete
the alphabet without singing or to count backwards, and indicated that his red and watery eyes were the result of
exhaustion. Tr. at 59–61. He also indicated that he would not be able to complete the dexterity exercise sober. Id. at
60. He also did not recall pushing the “unlock” button instead of rolling the window down, as instructed by law
enforcement personnel. Id. at 61. He also did not submit to a blood or Breathalyzer test prior to his arrest. Tr. at 40–
41; Ex. 16 at 66.
4 In addition to conducting drug and alcohol evaluations and treatment, the program also provides services to address
anger management and domestic violence. Tr. at 12. With regard to substance abuse, the program is designed to
“confront the substance abuse issue underlying the repetitive pattern of offenders and to reduce recidivism through . .
. supervision, treatment, and individual accountability.” Ex. B at 1.
5 The treatment program does not require individuals to secure a sponsor or to work the Twelve Steps of AA. Tr. at
32. At the time of the hearing, the Individual had attended “three or four” virtual AA meetings. Id. at 80–81. He intends
to secure a sponsor only “if necessary[,]” as he has no current desire to engage one. Id. at 85. The Individual indicated
that he is not working the Twelve Steps, as the group has “not yet started that[.]” Id.
6 The Individual was ordered by the judge to attend four additional group counseling sessions because an October test
was positive for alcohol and a November test was positive for opiates. Tr. at 15, 23–24, 26. When asked about the
incident, the Individual stated that he cannot “pinpoint exactly what caused” him to drink, but he acknowledged that
he “kind of slipped.” Id. at 71. He believes that it was at this point that he “really started to take accountability for the
program” and his decisions. Id. at 76–77.
7
Individual was given a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, Mild.7 Id. Regarding his participation
in treatment, the Individual indicated that the program is “very involved” and that the program has
“kept [him] from drinking,” and has “made [him] gain a different type of accountability[.]” Id. at
45–46. Since participating in the program, he has “got [his] head back on clear[.]” Id. at 46. He
testified that although he feels that he was “just a social drinker[,]” he has no intention of drinking
alcohol again and anticipates beginning the aftercare program in January 2026.8 Id. at 46–48, 67,
83. The Individual denied any current cravings for alcohol, confirmed that he last consumed
alcohol in late October 2024, and stated that he no longer keeps any alcohol in his home. Id. at 77–
78, 83. He confirmed that people close to him know that he no longer consumes alcohol and that
he is participating in the diversion program. Id. at 78. These people remain supportive of the
Individual. Id. The Individual testified that although he frequents places where alcohol is served,
like restaurants, he does not feel that the extra counseling sessions he would be forced to take in
the event of a positive urine test would be worth the drink. Id. at 79.
The Individual’s former DOE contractor supervisor, who worked with the Individual in some
capacity from 2015 to the time the Individual’s clearance was suspended, testified that he
consistently gave the Individual an “A” on his performance evaluations, and that the Individual
“deserved every bit of it.” Id. at 91–92. He did not see any behavior from the Individual that would
suggest that he has an alcohol or substance abuse problem. Id. at 93–94. He described the
Individual as reliable and trustworthy and explained that his absence has been detrimental to the
facility. Id. at 95–96.
The Individual’s manager from October 2024 to March 2025 testified that he gave the Individual
an “excellent” on his most recent performance evaluation. Id. at 106–07. He denied seeing the
Individual report to work in a hungover state. Id. at 107. He also indicated that he has not seen any
behavior from the Individual that would suggest that the Individual abuses alcohol or any other
substance. Id. at 107–08. He testified that the Individual is reliable and trustworthy, and that the
Individual has “great judgment in the work setting.” Id. at 108–09.
The Individual’s former shift operations manager testified that he has known the Individual since
October 2017, when they began working together. Id. at 115. He had the chance to evaluate the
Individual’s performance six times since October 2017, and he described the Individual as an “A”
performer. Id. at 116–17. He testified that the Individual never came to work hungover or under
the influence of alcohol or any other substance. Id. at 117. He described the Individual as “very
reliable[,]” as he is the best worker who performed his specific duties. Id. at 118–19. He confirmed
that the Individual is trustworthy and would be welcomed back to the workforce “[i]n a heartbeat.”
Id. at 119. He testified that the group has “shift outings,” where they will spend time together. Id.
7 The Individual testified that he had not been notified of his diagnosis prior to the hearing. Tr. at 68.
8 When describing his then “current rate of alcohol consumption” in the March 2023 LOI response, the Individual
indicated that due to his work schedule, he did not consume alcohol regularly. Ex. 16 at 66. Although he indicated
that he “may have a few beers with friends or family” on his days off, he also indicated that he did not have a lot of
time off. Id. The Individual indicated he feels that he does not drink alcohol to excess. Id. at 66–67. The Individual
testified that he would have deemed himself dependent on alcohol if he “needed it every single night.” Tr. at 68. He
felt that he was a “social drinker” because he only consumed alcohol “on rare occasions[.]” Id. He stated that he now
believes that “social drinking and drinking very infrequently . . . could be” more of an “issue” than he previously
believed. Id. at 70–71.
8
at 121. While he has seen the Individual consume alcohol on such outings in the past, he never
saw the Individual consume alcohol to excess. Id.
V. Analysis
Guideline G
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
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.
As the Individual has experienced a number of alcohol-related incidents over the span of a little
over a decade, the behavior was not infrequent and did not occur under unusual circumstances.
Further, as the last DUI was in 2023, and the Individual has repeatedly committed alcohol-related
offenses after the passage of several years without alcohol-related incidents, the alcohol-related
incident was not so long ago that the passage of time resolves the security concerns presented by
the Individual’s conduct. I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns
pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
Turning to the remaining mitigating conditions, as stated above, the Individual has failed to
acknowledge that his alcohol consumption was maladaptive and only indicated that he was a social
drinker. I also do not have any treatment recommendations made by an appropriate professional
with demonstrated skills in treating alcohol use disorder and knowledge of the Individual’s specific
needs, and accordingly, I do not have any evidence that he is following treatment
recommendations. While the Individual is receiving counseling for his alcohol consumption, I
have no meaningful information regarding whether the counseling sessions are tailored specifically
to the Individual’s alcohol-related needs. While the program has multiple phases, these phases
appear to be standard for every participant, regardless of their diagnosis. It would stand to reason
9
that a person without an official alcohol diagnosis would have a different set of treatment needs
than a person who has received an alcohol use disorder or related diagnosis. While I can appreciate
that the Individual is receiving group counseling on a weekly basis, I do not have any information
regarding counselor credentials, whether the program meets any minimum standards of treatment
designed to help the individual achieve long-term abstinence, the Individual’s prognosis, and
whether he is making any meaningful strides in internalizing the information imparted during the
counseling sessions.
I do have concerns that the Individual is, in fact, failing to internalize the treatment. The Individual
testified that his past alcohol use was “social” in nature, despite the fact that he was charged with
alcohol-related offenses twice in the last four years or so. Further, when asked whether he intended
to secure an AA sponsor, he indicated that he had no such inclination and would not do so unless
it was required of him. This indicates to me that the Individual may not be very concerned with
his long-term sobriety, as he feels he is not in any need of any extra assistance to remain sober.
Rather, it indicates to me that the Individual is more concerned with meeting program requirements
to satisfactorily resolve the criminal matter.
As the Individual does not acknowledge his maladaptive alcohol use, I do not have any treatment
recommendations and I cannot conclude that he remains abstinent or has modified his consumption
pursuant to those recommendations, and I have no meaningful information regarding the
Individual’s progress in the program, or even a prognosis, I find mitigating conditions (b) and (c)
inapplicable. Also, at the time of the hearing, the Individual had not completed the program or the
required aftercare. The Individual has therefore failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to
mitigating factor (d).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find none of the mitigating conditions applicable to the facts of
this case. Accordingly, the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline G.
Guideline J
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that can mitigate security concerns under
Guideline J include:
(a) So much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) No reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance
10
with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
The majority of the listed incidents that raise concerns under Guideline J are alcohol related. As
the Individual has failed to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns, I accordingly cannot conclude
that he has mitigated the alcohol-related criminal behavior. The Individual’s last alcohol-related
criminal charge was in 2023, which was not so long ago in light of his pattern of reoffending after
periods of several years without alcohol-related arrests. Further, I cannot conclude that the alcohol-
related criminal charges happened under such unusual circumstances, as they happened over the
span of years, in the context of the Individual’s everyday living, and two of the incidents occurred
while the Individual held access authorization. I cannot conclude that the behavior is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment
under mitigating factor (a). The Individual has, however, mitigated the non-alcohol related
criminal behaviors. The 2014 Driving on Wrong Side of Road and the Speeding 86-mph in a 65-
mph zone charge in August 2017 both occurred years ago, one over ten years ago and one almost
eight years ago. I have no information that the Individual engaged in related or similar behaviors
since. Accordingly, the Individual has mitigated concerns associated with the aforementioned
criminal behaviors pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
While it is true that the Individual participated in several intervention or diversion programs to
resolve the alcohol-related criminal matters, the fact remains that the Individual has been charged
multiple times over the span of 13 years. This, in itself, does not show proper rehabilitation, as
rehabilitation suggests that the underlying issue has been addressed, preventing the recurrence of
the same or similar criminal behavior. Further, while the Individual was compliant with the
requirements of the previous programs, he still has not completed the current program in which he
is participating. Also, there is evidence that the Individual failed to comply with the terms of the
current program, as he consumed alcohol in October 2024. While I do have evidence of good job
performance, I do not have evidence of any higher education or constructive community
involvement. On balance, I cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the stated concerns
pursuant to mitigating factor (d).
The Individual did not allege that he was pressured or coerced into committing the alleged acts.
Mitigating factor (b) is not applicable. Although the Individual argued that he was exhausted and
that law enforcement confused his outward signs of exhaustion with intoxication at the time of his
2023 DUI arrest, having examined the documented evidence pertaining to the matter, I believe that
the evidence was reliable. The report produced by law enforcement was sufficiently detailed
regarding the field sobriety tests and provided sufficient insight into their observations regarding
the Individual’s physical state. The Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant
to mitigating factor (c).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has not fully resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline J.
VI. Conclusion
11
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and J, but
not Guideline E, 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 not brought forth
sufficient evidence to resolve the Guidelines G and J concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly,
the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals