PSH-25-0023

*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.
Office of Hearings and Appeals
In the Matter of: Personnel Security Hearing )
)
Filing Date: November 7, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0023
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 21, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 granted.
I. Background
As part of the access authorization application process, the Individual completed, signed, and
submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in July 2023. Exhibit (Ex.) 9.2
In the QNSP, the Individual disclosed that he was charged with Public Intoxication and Liquor
Violation in June 2006, Child Abuse, Intoxication, and Liquor Violation in April 2014, and
Negligent Use of a Firearm in December 2018. Id. at 119–21.
As part of the investigation process, the Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview
(ESI) conducted by an investigator in January 2024. Ex. 10 at 197. During the ESI, the investigator
confirmed the 2006 Public Intoxication and Liquor Violation charges with the Individual, but the
Individual “could not provide any details or information about [the] incident.” Id. at 198.
Regarding the 2014 Child Abuse, Intoxication, and Liquor Violation charges, the Individual told
the investigator that at the time, he lived in an area that did not permit alcohol use, even by
appropriately aged adults. Id. at 198–99. The Individual was drinking in his home with several
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
friends, and law enforcement responded to the home following a complaint. Id. at 199. As alcohol
was present and being consumed in the Individual’s home, law enforcement personnel arrested the
Individual. Id. As the Individual’s minor children were asleep in their beds at the time of the
incident, the Individual was charged with child abuse, and although he remembers being
intoxicated, he could not remember how much alcohol he had consumed. Id. The Individual was,
among other things, placed on probation and ordered to pay a fine. Id.
The Individual was confronted by the investigator with the fact that he was also charged with DWI
at the time he was charged with Negligent Use of a Firearm in 2018, which the Individual
confirmed. Id. at 200. The Individual stated that he failed to list the DWI charge in the QNSP
because it had been deferred. Id. Regarding the incident, the Individual told the investigator that
he had been drinking while performing some outdoor chores and activities on a friend’s property.
Id. As he was driving off the property and out the front gate, the Individual “passed out behind the
wheel[.]” Id. He did not feel intoxicated at the time, but because “[h]e was tired” and had consumed
a few beers, “he fell asleep.” Id. He stated that he “does not know why he was charged with a
firearms offense[,]” but acknowledged that “[h]e had a firearm in the backseat.” Id. The Individual
noted that the firearm had been secured and that he never attempted to “use it during the incident.”
Id.
The investigator also confronted the Individual with a February 1998 DWI charge, which the
Individual failed to list on the QNSP. Id. The Individual told the investigator that on the day of the
incident, he had gone to a bar with his ex-wife, as it was her birthday. Id. Although he admitted
that he had consumed alcohol, he did not recall feeling intoxicated. Id. On the drive back home,
the Individual’s ex-wife asked him to stop the car on the shoulder of the road, because she was
going to be sick. Id. A law enforcement officer approached the Individual and his ex-wife on the
side of the road, smelled alcohol about their persons, and asked the Individual to perform field
sobriety tests. Id. As the Individual failed the tests, he was taken to a detention center where he
was held for several days. Id. The charges were ultimately dismissed. Id.
The Individual explained to the investigator that he also failed to disclose a 2022 DWI and Public
Intoxication charge on his QNSP. Id. Regarding that incident, the Individual explained that he “had
beer [while] ranching and was found by . . . officials . . . passed out in his vehicle.” Id. at 201. He
could not remember how much alcohol he had consumed on that occasion, but recalled that he had
been “given a deferred sentence[.]” Id.
In the Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) that the Individual completed and submitted in June 2024 at
the behest of the Local Security Office (LSO), he confirmed what he had told the investigator
regarding the aforementioned alcohol-related incidents. Ex. 6. He clarified that the December 2018
DWI and Negligent Use of a Firearm charges were dismissed, and that he was also required to
engage behavior health services in connection with the 2014 Child Abuse, Intoxication, and Liquor
Violation charges. Id. at 26, 28.
As questions still remained, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE-
consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in July 2024. Ex. 7. The Individual submitted to a
phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test in conjunction with the psychological evaluation, the results of
3
which were 330 ng/mL.3 Id. at 48. The DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report) of his
findings in August 2024, and in the Report, he concluded that, pursuant to the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders–Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-V-TR), the
Individual suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 52. The DOE Psychologist also concluded that the Individual
“habitually and binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment” and suffers from
Posttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). Id.
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 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) and I
(Psychological Conditions) 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 an intensive outpatient treatment
program (IOP) mental health therapist, his employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP)
counselor, the EAP case manager, his girlfriend, and his foreman. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0023 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted four exhibits,
marked Exhibits A through D. The DOE Counsel submitted ten exhibits marked as Exhibits 1
through 10 and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
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 are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence[,]” “habitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,” and “diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c)‒(d). Under
Guideline G, the LSO alleged that:
3 PEth is “a molecule made only when ingested alcohol reaches the surface of the red blood cell and reacts with a
compound in the red blood cell membrane. Ex. 7 at 48. “[N]othing but ethyl alcohol can make PEth in the red blood
cell [.]” Id. A PEth test result “exceeding 20 ng/mL is evidence of [National Institute of Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism] ‘Low’ and [World Health Organization] ‘Medium’ risk of consumption.” Id. at 71.
4
1. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Moderate, without evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The DOE Psychologist also concluded that the
Individual “habitually and binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.” Id.
2. The Individual was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication and DWI in September
2022. Id.
3. The Individual was charged with DWI and Negligent Use of a Firearm in December 2018.
Id.
4. The Individual was charged with Intoxication, Liquor Violation, and Child Abuse in April
2014. Id.
5. The Individual was charged with Public Intoxication in June 2006. Id.
6. The Individual was arrested and charged with DWI in February 1998. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
Guideline I
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b). Under Guideline I, the LSO alleged that the DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with PTSD, which is a condition that impairs his judgment,
reliability, stability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 1 at 5–6. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is
justified.
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
5
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
Although the Individual consumed alcohol throughout his adulthood, his alcohol consumption
increased in 2016, precipitating his divorce. Ex. 10 at 202; Ex. 7 at 46. He perceived that his
consumption became problematic around 2018 or 2019, “after he witnessed the deaths of several
family members” following a deadly accident. Ex. 10 at 202; Ex. 7 at 46; Tr. at 78–80. As a result
of this traumatic event, the Individual began consuming alcohol to help him fall asleep. Ex. 10 at
202; Tr. at 80–81. At the time, in addition to the alcohol he was consuming on a daily basis during
weekdays, he was consuming about twelve beers every Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. Ex. 7 at 46;
Tr. at 81. The Report noted that the Individual suffered alcohol-related arrests in 1998, 2006, and
2014, which “indicates that his alcohol use was problematic prior to the accident.” Ex. 7 at 46.
When his girlfriend confronted him about the fact that his consumption had increased, the
Individual voluntarily sought outpatient substance abuse treatment for alcohol use from November
2022 to December 2023.4 Ex. 7 at 47; Ex. 6 at 34. The Individual was diagnosed with AUD, and
“attended group and individual counseling sessions[.]” Ex. 7 at 47. The Individual understood that
he had experienced difficulties with the passing of loved ones and that his alcohol consumption
had become problematic. Ex. 6 at 34. The Individual was abstinent for a period of six months while
he was seeking outpatient substance abuse treatment, but he began consuming alcohol again
because he “thought . . . that [he] could handle it[.]” Tr. at 92, 101.
At the time of the June 2024 LOI response, the Individual generally consumed about one can of
beer on weekdays, and about two cans of beer “on weekends.” Ex. 6 at 31. He noted that he must
consume approximately one “six pack” of beer to become inebriated. Id. at 32. He clarified that he
was last intoxicated in May 2024, when he consumed approximately eight cans of beer. Id. The
Individual acknowledged that a friend had previously expressed concern over his alcohol
consumption, but that he believed he had “gotten better at staying away [from alcohol]” after
securing employment with the DOE contractor. Id. at 33.
In the Report, the DOE Psychologist recommended that for the Individual to show rehabilitation
or reformation, he must “enroll in and complete an [IOP], consistently engage in weekly aftercare
support for [twelve] months,” and submit to monthly PEth testing.5 Ex. 7 at 52. Further, the DOE
Psychologist indicated that the IOP should consist of at least nine hours of “therapeutic and
educational meetings a week, usually in three [three-hour] sessions, for between [twelve] and
[sixteen] weeks with a group and individual components.” Id.
4 At this time, the Individual was seeing a licensed alcohol and drug abuse counselor, with whom he still has occasional
telephone conversations. Tr. at 91–92, 99, 101; Ex. 7 at 47. This particular treatment did not address the Individual’s
PTSD. Ex. 7 at 47; Tr. at 91.
5 At the time of the hearing, the Individual had not submitted to any PEth testing beyond the one he submitted to in
connection with the psychological evaluation. Tr. at 90.
6
Further, as indicated above, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual suffers from
PTSD. Id. at 52. The DOE Psychologist observed that the Individual would “unsuccessfully”
consume alcohol to “mediate symptoms of PTSD,” which would, in turn, further exacerbate his
alcohol use. Id. Therefore, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual “seek
appropriate treatment for his symptoms of PTSD[.]”6 Id.
In January 2025, after hearing some friends discuss treatment, the Individual began one-on-one
therapy with a counselor, receiving treatment that was “alcohol related . . . in part.” Tr. at 34–35,
81. He and his counselor discuss his continuing efforts to remain abstinent, and the handful of
occasions he was tempted to consume alcohol and how he coped with his cravings. Id. at 82. The
Individual attends sessions with his counselor on a weekly basis, and each session lasts one hour.7
Id. at 36, 83–84. He appreciates the fact that his counselor is an active listener and offers him
appropriate feedback and advice on “how to stay strong[.]” Id. at 84.
His counselor provided him with some information about an IOP offered by her practice, and she
helped him enroll in the program in February 2025. Id. at 81–82. The Individual enrolled in a
sixteen-week virtual IOP, and was promptly diagnosed with alcohol abuse, uncomplicated. Id. at
37, 44. The IOP consists of three group meetings every week, each meeting lasting an hour and a
half. Id. at 39. IOP participants are required to keep their cameras on during meetings and remain
abstinent from alcohol for the duration of this program.8 Id. at 37. The IOP employes the “Matrix
Model” of recovery, and participants are taught “topics of early recovery skills, relapse prevention,
[and] family education.” Id. at 38. Participants are also taught to identify triggers, learn coping
mechanisms, and explore their relationship with alcohol. Id. The Individual’s IOP mental health
therapist testified that the Individual “has remained fully engaged throughout the program[,]” and
has had perfect attendance.9 Id. The IOP mental health therapist described the Individual’s
participation as “highly communicative[.]” Id. at 43.
6 The DOE Psychologist surmised that if the Individual did seek and receive appropriate treatment for his PTSD, his
prognosis would likely be “positive[.]” Ex. 7 at 52. Should he fail to receive the recommended treatment, “his
prognosis is poor.” Id. At the time of the hearing, the Individual was not receiving treatment for his PTSD. Tr. at 84.
The Individual testified that his community health clinic is occasionally visited by a psychiatrist. Id. at 84–85. As the
psychiatrist’s time is in great demand, the Individual was unable to speak with him until February 2025, when they
discussed the Individual’s PTSD symptoms. Id. at 85. The February 2025 meeting was the first and only time he
visited with the psychiatrist. Id. This single session was the only treatment the Individual received for his PTSD. Id.
at 85–86. The psychiatrist did not recommend any medication. Id. at 103. When asked whether he still experiences
PTSD symptoms, the Individual indicated that his symptoms have “changed a lot[,]” and that he has not experienced
his symptoms since he stopped consuming alcohol. Id. at 86.
7 At the time of the hearing, the Individual had attended ten sessions with this counselor. Tr. at 36. He intends to see
his counselor for at least one year. Id. at 84.
8 The IOP does not conduct alcohol tests, but rather, depends on self-reports to ascertain whether a participant has
consumed alcohol. Tr. at 37.
9 The Individual completed the program the day prior to the hearing in May 2025. Tr. at 39, 89. The IOP does not
have a dedicated aftercare program, but the Individual intends to continue to receive one-on-one therapy. Id. at 39–
40, 42–43.
7
Also in February 2025, the Individual began attending his employer’s EAP alcohol education class.
Ex. C; Tr. at 14. The alcohol education class lasted six weeks and was completed in late March
2025. Ex. D. In early April 2025, the Individual began attending an EAP class supporting
abstinence from alcohol, and at the time of the hearing in early May, the Individual had attended
three sessions. Ex. C; Tr. at 14. The EAP counselor testified that the Individual was “always sitting
to [her] right” during class meetings and she “could tell he was always listening and sharing and
took in a lot of information.” Tr. at 15. She also indicated that she saw the Individual for one
individual therapy session in February 2025, during which they discussed the accident that took
the life of his family members and the therapy he intended to secure to address his trauma from
that incident. Id. at 17. They also discussed the fact that his alcohol consumption had increased
following the accident, and that he had started a sixteen-week IOP. Id. at 18. The EAP counselor
confirmed that the EAP does not conduct alcohol or drug testing, and that the Individual had told
her that he last consumed alcohol on Super Bowl Sunday in February 2025.10 Id. at 19, 22–23.
The Individual testified that he does not “miss” the feeling of “being hung over and knowing that
[he was not] 100 percent.” Id. at 75. When he began attending EAP meetings, the Individual was
initially concerned about being judged, as he understood that he would have to discuss his
problems with the group. Id. at 75–76. However, as he realized that his fellow participants did not
know him on a personal level, he was able to “open up and start . . . talking about [his] issues[.]”
Id. at 77. He came to appreciate the fact that they would listen to him and offer him feedback. Id.
The Individual also testified that on several occasions, he was tempted to consume alcohol to deal
with his work stress and the stress caused by community politics. Id. at 82–83. He testified that he
“[cannot] say that [he is] done [with alcohol], but [he is] trying very hard to stay away from [it]”
as his life has generally improved. Id. at 92–93. He would reach out to his girlfriend for support in
the event of a craving. Id. at 93. He also no longer keeps alcohol in his home. Id. at 94.
The Individual’s foreman testified that the Individual “does a good job” and is “one of the guys
with a better understanding of what [they] do there and a better understanding of the trade.” Id. at
50, 52. He confirmed that he feels that the Individual is honest, trustworthy, and reliable. Id. at 52.
He supports the fact that the Individual goes to counseling and allows the Individual to attend
during the workday. Id. at 53–54. The Individual’s foreman described the Individual as
“necessary” to his workplace team. Id. at 54.
The Individual’s girlfriend of approximately seven years testified that the Individual was abstinent
from alcohol at the time of the hearing, and that to her knowledge, he does not keep alcohol in his
home. Id. at 60–61. She stated that the Individual told her that he “gave up drinking” in order to
“have a better life and be better for his kids, grandkids and for [them].” Id. at 61, 68. Since he
stopped drinking, the Individual spends more time with her and her family. Id. at 61. The
Individual’s girlfriend confirmed at the hearing that she believed that his alcohol consumption had
become a problem and traced the beginnings of his maladaptive alcohol use to the traumatic deaths
10 The Individual confirmed in his testimony that he last consumed alcohol on Super Bowl Sunday, when he consumed
a twelve-pack of beer. Tr. at 72, 77. The Individual testified that he decided to stop drinking when he missed a few
important events due to his alcohol consumption. Id. at 73. Although he had spoken to the DOE Psychologist in July
2024, he had not realized how serious his alcohol consumption had become until he missed those events. Id. at 74.
8
of his family members.11 Id. at 61–62. As they are not cohabitating, the Individual’s girlfriend
could not provide more than a rough estimate of how much the Individual was drinking but stated
that the Individual began “cutting back” after she discussed his consumption with him. Id. at 62–
63. She indicated that the Individual has told her that he does not intend to drink alcohol in the
future. Id. at 64. Although she stated that she “know[s] he [has not]” consumed alcohol from the
time he began abstaining, the Individual has told her that he occasionally desires a drink. Id. at 65.
She knows that his friends and family know that he intends to abstain from alcohol, so they do not
offer him any alcohol at social gatherings, and if the circumstances of the social gathering become
“too much,” the Individual leaves. Id. at 65–66, 97–98.
The DOE Psychologist opined in his testimony that the Individual’s diagnosis had not changed,
and although the Individual claimed to have remained abstinent since February 2025, he was not
yet in early remission. Id. at 107. The DOE Psychologist stated that based on the information
presented at the hearing, he was not satisfied that the Individual had followed the recommendations
for sobriety made in the Report, as there was an “absence of any objective evidence for sobriety.”
Id. at 107–08. However, assuming that the Individual’s self-reports of abstinence were correct, at
the time of the hearing, he was days away from being in early remission. Id. at 108. The DOE
Psychologist testified that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation, as the record does not contain PEth tests evidencing sobriety, and although he
completed an IOP, the Individual had not engaged in the recommended aftercare. Id. at 108–10.
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s current prognosis is poor, as he is still early
in his recovery and vulnerable to alcohol use in times of stress. Id. at 112. He also confirmed in
his testimony that the PTSD diagnosis is still an active diagnosis, and although the Individual
testified that he had made progress with regard to his PTSD symptoms, the Individual suffers from
“compound PTSD,” as his previous experiences have caused him to consistently witness others in
a state of severe injury or near death, resulting in trauma. Id. at 111. Accordingly, “although [he
is] not reporting symptoms now, they can come back[.]” Id. The DOE Psychologist would have
liked to have seen some indication that the Individual learned how to manage and cope with his
PTSD symptoms outside the use of alcohol, which is why he recommended “PTSD-specific
treatment.” 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;
11 The Individual’s girlfriend testified that the Individual became quite “angry,” and refused to talk to her about the
accident. Tr. at 66–67. She believes that the Individual turned to alcohol for this reason. Id. Since abstaining from
alcohol, the Individual has “opened up a little bit more,” which has improved their relationship. Id. at 68.
9
(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.
While the Individual has made notable strides in addressing the alcohol-related Guideline G
concerns, I cannot conclude that he has mitigated those concerns. Based on the information in the
record, the Individual last consumed alcohol on Super Bowl Sunday, which occurred in early
February 2025. Although the Individual’s decision to seek treatment for his alcohol consumption,
which he realized had become maladaptive, was thoughtful and responsible, it occurred too late,
and he went down the path of sobriety without the benefit of corroborating PEth tests to satisfy the
DOE Psychologist’s recommendations. Further, the Individual did not produce negative PEth tests
to evidence his ongoing abstinence. While it appears that the Individual’s participation in the IOP
and EAP meetings has been satisfactory, and that his abstinence from alcohol has been a net
positive in his life, at the time of the hearing, the Individual had not been abstinent long enough to
show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Further, while it appears from the record
that the Individual received appropriate treatment at the IOP and he intends to continue his
treatment efforts to hopefully address the poor judgment he exhibited before each alcohol-related
incident, the most recent of which took place less than three years ago, the modest three months
of abstinence the Individual has completed is not long enough to assuage any concerns that the
Individual will repeat similar behavior by exercising the same judgment.
As indicated above, the Individual has only been abstinent for approximately three months
following years of regular maladaptive alcohol use, which resulted in alcohol-related incidents
spanning decades. Accordingly, I cannot conclude that the behavior was infrequent, that enough
time has passed, as the Individual has only recently embarked on his newfound sobriety, or that
the Individual’s maladaptive use and alleged alcohol-related incidents took place under such
unusual circumstances that they are unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. The Individual has failed to mitigate the stated Guideline
G concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (a).
As stated above, the Individual recognized that his alcohol consumption had become maladaptive,
and although he provided evidence indicating that he engaged various treatment providers and
treatment programs to address his maladaptive alcohol consumption, the Individual has not been
abstinent for twelve months and has not produced corroborating PEth tests, as recommended by
the DOE Psychologist. Thus, he has not demonstrated the applicability of mitigating condition (b).
10
While the Individual is continuing his one-one-one counseling and current EAP group, the
Individual does have a previous history of treatment and relapse when he received treatment in
late 2022 and early 2023, remaining abstinent for approximately six months before resuming
alcohol consumption. The Individual has also not submitted to any further PEth testing, and
therefore, cannot demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations. For the foregoing reasons, I cannot conclude that the Individual has
mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factors (c) and (d).
Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I include:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amendable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
There is no doubt from the record that the Individual suffered a great trauma when he watched as
his family members passed away in an unfortunate accident. It is also clear from the record that
the Individual had previously used alcohol to regulate his resulting PTSD symptoms. He testified
that since abstaining from alcohol, he has not experienced his PTSD symptoms, and that he has
seen a psychiatrist about his PTSD on only one occasion. While I am heartened by the Individual’s
testimony that he has not experienced any symptoms since abstaining from alcohol, I cannot ignore
the fact that the Individual has not received dedicated, regular, and appropriate treatment to prevent
the recurrence of his PTSD symptoms. Further, as indicated in the DOE Psychologist’s testimony,
there is no evidence in the record illustrating how the Individual manages his PTSD symptoms
outside the use of alcohol.
11
As the Individual is not receiving ongoing treatment and did not put forth evidence of a treatment
plan or a good prognosis, he has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factors
(a) and (b).
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s diagnosis of PTSD still stands, and as I did
not receive any indication from the DOE Psychologist that the Individual’s PTSD is under control
or in remission and has a low probably of recurrence or exacerbation, I cannot conclude that the
Individual has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (c).
There is no indication in the record that the Individual’s PTSD was temporary. In fact, the record
indicates that he exhibited PTSD symptoms for quite some time, used alcohol to soothe himself
and gain temporary relief from his symptoms, and did not seek ongoing treatment to resolve the
matter. I cannot conclude that the Individual mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating
factor (d).
Finally, while the Individual testified that he has not experienced PTSD symptoms since he
stopped drinking alcohol, the Individual has only been abstinent since early February 2025 and
has not received dedicated treatment to address his PTSD. His lack of readily identifiable
symptoms does not evidence the lack of a current problem. Rather, it indicates that he is merely
experiencing a lull in the acuity of his condition, despite the fact that his PTSD has gone untreated.
The Individual has not mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (e).
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the facts of this case, I
find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline
I.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and I 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 I concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that granting 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 granted. 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