PSH-25-0036

*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: December 2, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0036
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 15, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual has a 10-year history of criminal involvement. On September 2, 2015, a restraining
order was issued against the Individual for the offense of Domestic Violence – Minor as Party.
Exhibit (Ex.) 17 at 299.2 On September 17, 2016, the Individual was arrested and charged with
Driving Under the Influence (DUI), when he was driving home after consuming alcohol at a
friend’s house. Id. at 271, 372–73; Ex. 7 at 34–36; Ex. 8 at 45; Ex. 14 at 134–35; Ex. 15 at 182–
83. The Individual was a minor at the time of this arrest. Ex. 7 at 34. According to the Individual’s
statement to a security clearance investigator, he failed the breathalyzer test at the time of his arrest
and was placed on probation for approximately six months. Ex. 17 at 373. On April 27, 2017, the
Individual was charged with Speeding. Id. at 298.
On February 25, 2018, police responded to an incident of physical violence involving the
Individual, his girlfriend, his father, and his older sister, in which the Individual tackled his father
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 -
to the ground. Ex. 11 at 75–77; Ex. 17 at 373. No charges were filed “due to a lack of information
establishing [the Individual] and [his girlfriend] as primary aggressors.” Ex. 11 at 77 (narrative
prepared by the responding police officer). Although the Individual disclosed this incident during
a security clearance interview conducted on October 14, 2020, during a subsequent interview on
January 22, 2024, the Individual stated that he could not recall the incident and that he had no
interaction with law enforcement in February 2018. Ex. 17 at 272, 373.
On a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) that the Individual completed on May
20, 2019 (2019 QNSP), the Individual admitted that he smoked marijuana two times in the summer
of 2018. Ex. 16 at 206. He volunteered this information again during an interview by a security
clearance investigator on October 14, 2020. Ex. 17 at 374. Yet on two QNSPs that the Individual
completed on August 20, 2020 (2020 QNSP), and December 19, 2023 (2023 QNSP), the
Individual certified that he had not illegally used or purchased any controlled substances in the
past seven years. Ex. 15 at 184; Ex. 14 at 136. When later confronted about this omission by a
security clearance investigator, the Individual claimed that it was due to an oversight. Ex. 17 at
272.
In October 2018, the Individual was terminated from his employment for spending too much time
taking personal phone calls, despite multiple warnings. Id. at 269–70. When completing the 2019
and 2020 QNSPs, the Individual denied that he had been fired from this employment, and on a
May 20, 2019, Declaration for Federal Employment, he denied that he had been fired from any
employment within the last five years. Ex. 15 at 165–66; Ex. 14 at 117–18; Ex. 8 at 44. When later
confronted about these false statements by a security clearance investigator, the Individual claimed
that they were due to an oversight. Ex. 17 at 269–70.
On April 18, 2021, police were dispatched to the Individual’s home in response to a physical
altercation between the Individual and his girlfriend, in which the Individual was alleged to have
punched her in the head. Id. at 296–97. No charges were filed against either party. Id. at 297. On
October 21, 2021, the Individual was criminally charged with Battery (household member) and
Battery. Ex. 9 at 47–48. The Individual failed to disclose this incident to the Local Security Office
(LSO) on multiple occasions: on the 2023 QNSP, in his April 23, 2024, response to a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI) issued to him by the LSO, and during an interview conducted on January 22,
2024, as part of his security clearance investigation. Ex. 14 at 134–36; Ex. 7 at 33; Ex. 17 at 271–
72.
On February 18, 2024, the Individual was arrested and criminally charged with Aggravated Battery
on a Household Member, Interference with Communications, and Abuse of a Child. Ex. 9 at 49–
50; Ex. 6 at 28–29. According to the arresting officer’s report, the Individual’s girlfriend woke
him up in the middle of the night, at which time he allegedly struck her multiple times, bit her arm
twice, and then tried to prevent her from making a phone call to her mother for help. Ex. 10 at 64–
65. The altercation occurred two feet away from where their two-year-old son was sleeping. Id. at
65. When interviewed by the arresting officer, the Individual denied knowledge of how his
girlfriend sustained her injuries. Id. Later, in his response to the LOI, he admitted that “things got
too far” and that he had consumed “more than just a few beers” earlier that day at his son’s birthday
- 3 -
party.3 Ex. 7 at 31–32, 38. On March 24, 2024, the Individual was charged with Aggravated Battery
Against a Household Member, Abuse of a Child, and Deprivation of the Property of a Household
Member. Ex. 9 at 51. The Individual failed to report both the February and March 2024 charges
within three working days, as required by DOE Order 472.2A. Ex. 5 at 25; Ex. 4 at 19. Further,
when responding to the LOI in April 2024, the Individual failed to disclose the March 2024 arrest
when asked if he had been arrested for any other incidents in the last seven years. Ex. 7 at 33.
On June 20, 2024, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE-contracted psychologist (Psychologist).
Ex. 12. As part of the evaluation, the Individual was interviewed by the Psychologist for 1.75 hours
and sent for a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test for alcohol.4 Id. at 81. In the interview, the Individual
described his current pattern of drinking as “only on weekends” and typically around “six or seven
beers” if there is a party or otherwise “two to four beers on Saturday and/or Sunday” and an
occasional shot of liquor. Id. at 83. After his February 2024 arrest, the Individual stated, he and his
girlfriend decided to decrease the frequency and amount of alcohol they both consume. Id. In the
30 days prior to the evaluation, according to the Individual, he consumed approximately 13 beers.
Id. The Individual’s PEth result, however, was positive at 211 ng/mL. Id. at 84. According to the
consultant psychiatrist who interpreted the result, this indicates that the Individual was consuming
“on average about 4 or more drinks/day.” Id. at 84. Thus, the Psychologist opined, the Individual
was underreporting his alcohol consumption. Id.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol
Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision. Id. She further opined that the Individual had been
drinking “in a range of ‘heavy consumption,’ most likely by binge drinking on weekends,” and
that the diagnosis of AUD and a pattern of binge drinking “are conditions which impair judgment.”
Id. To show rehabilitation, she opined, the Individual would need to take one of two approaches:
(1) “attend treatment of moderate intensity, such as once-per-week individual and group meetings
for a period of six months which are focused on substance/alcohol use,” or (2) “attend three
[Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)] meetings per week, work with a sponsor, and have his attendance
documented.” Id. at 85. The Individual would need to submit to monthly PEth tests to demonstrate
his abstinence over the six-month period. Id. Alternatively, if the Individual opted not to participate
in treatment or AA, the Individual would be able to show reformation by abstaining from alcohol
for one year, as documented by negative PEth tests. Id.
3 The Individual has provided inconsistent accounts of his alcohol consumption that day. In the April 2024 LOI, he
claimed to have consumed “around 10 beers” at the party, which lasted from noon until 5 p.m. Ex. 7 at 31, 38. In an
interview with a DOE-consultant psychologist on June 20, 2024, however, he told her that he consumed two 16-ounce
light beers at the party, and then five or six 12-ounce light beers and two shots of liquor between 8:30 and 10:30 p.m.
Ex. 12 at 81–82.
4 According to the consultant psychiatrist who interpreted the Individual’s PEth result,
The PEth level reflects the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28-30 days . . . . PEth
greater than 20 ng/mL corresponds to significant alcohol consumption (averaging 2-4 drinks per day several
days/week). . . . PEth greater than 200 ng/mL is heavy drinking (at least 4 drinks/day several days/week . .
.).
Ex. 12 at 91.
- 4 -
On August 19, 2024, the LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. Ex. 1 at 9. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Activity) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 6–8.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 13. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA)
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an
administrative hearing. The LSO submitted 17 exhibits (Ex. 1–17). The Individual did not submit
any exhibits. At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf, and the LSO called the
Psychologist to testify. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0036 (Tr.).
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E as the first basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible
for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6–7. “Conduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor,
dishonesty, or unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protected classified or sensitive
information.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 15. According to the LSO, the factors that gave rise to
the Guideline E concern were: that the Individual failed to report within three working days that
he was criminally charged on February 18 and March 24, 2024; that he failed to disclose the March
24, 2024, and October 21, 2021, charges on the LOI; that he failed to disclose the October 21,
2021, charges in the January 2024 investigatory interview and in the 2023 QNSP; that he falsely
denied his 2018 purchase and use of marijuana on the 2020 QNSP,5 on the 2023 QNSP, and in the
January 2024 investigatory interview; that in the January 2024 investigatory interview he denied
any recollection of the February 2018 altercation with his father, or any interaction with law
enforcement at that time; and that he falsely denied his 2018 termination from employment on the
2019 Declaration for Federal Employment, on the 2019 QNSP, and on the 2020 QNSP. Ex. 1 at
6–7. These allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline E. See Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 16(a)–(b).
The LSO cited Guideline G as the second basis for its determination that the Individual was
ineligible for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 7. “Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the
exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about
an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. According to the
LSO, the factors that gave rise to the Guideline G concern were: the Psychologist’s diagnosis of
the Individual with AUD, Mild, and her opinion that the Individual had likely been engaged in
weekend binge drinking, which would impair his judgment; that he was charged with Aggravated
Battery and other criminal offenses in February 2024 at a time when he was intoxicated, after
consuming approximately 10 beers; and that he was arrested and charged with DUI in September
2016. Ex. 1 at 7. These allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G. See Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c)‒(d).
5 The record does not establish that the Individual purchased the marijuana he used in 2018. As such, I will only
consider, as part of the Guideline E security concern, that the Individual failed to disclose his marijuana use.
- 5 -
The LSO cited Guideline J as the third basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible
for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 7–8. “Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30.
According to the LSO, the factors that gave rise to the Guideline J concern were: that the Individual
was charged with violent crimes on March 24, 2024, February 18, 2024, and October 21, 2021;
that the Individual was involved in physical altercations on April 18, 2021, and February 25, 2018,
that resulted in police involvement; that he purchased and used marijuana two times6 in the summer
of 2018; that he was arrested and charged with DUI on September 17, 2016; that he was charged
with Speeding on April 27, 2017; and that a “Domestic Violence, No Contact Temporary
Restraining Order” was filed against him on September 2, 2015. Ex. 1 at 7–8. These allegations
justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J. See Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(b).
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
Dep’t of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national interest”
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
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. HEARING TESTIMONY
During his testimony, the Individual was asked about the March 24, 2024, altercation with his
girlfriend that resulted in criminal charges against him. Tr. at 12–13. He initially claimed that he
“did not hit” his girlfriend, but was only “trying to stop her from hitting me,” when she dropped
her phone and the screen broke. Id. at 13. Later in his testimony, he admitted that when his
girlfriend was trying to hit him, he “had to just put her on the floor and just hold her there.” Id. at
51. Their son was present during the altercation. Id. at 13. The Individual reported the incident to
6 As noted supra, note 5, the record does not establish that the Individual purchased marijuana. As such, I will only
consider as part of the Guideline J security concern that the Individual used marijuana twice in 2018.
- 6 -
security at the DOE facility where he works, but he did not know he was also required to report it
to the LSO. Id. at 13–14. Additionally, he did not disclose the arrest on the April 2024 LOI because
he was “pretty nervous” when filling it out and he “was still going through a whole bunch with
lawyers and the court process and everything.” Id. at 15. When asked about the current status of
the criminal charges, the Individual testified that “[e]verything has been dropped.” Id. at 17.
Regarding the February 18, 2024, altercation with his girlfriend, the Individual testified that after
arriving home from his son’s birthday party, he consumed “some drinks” and fell asleep. Id. at
17–18. He woke up still intoxicated and heard his girlfriend “yelling” at his mom on the phone
that he had hit her. Id. at 18. “And that’s when I had went to jail, that night,” he stated. Id. When
asked if he took responsibility for the injuries that his girlfriend sustained to her face and arm that
night, the Individual testified that he had no recollection of even touching her. Id. at 21–22. The
Individual did not know he was required to report this incident to the LSO. Id. at 18. As to the
status of the criminal charges, he indicated that the charges had been dropped. Id. at 19.
Regarding the October 21, 2021, altercation, the Individual indicated that he had a dispute with his
girlfriend at her mom’s house. Id. at 23–24. As he was leaving the house, his girlfriend’s mom
came outside, shouted an insult at him, and pushed him. Id. at 24. He then pushed her back. Id.
After arriving home, he received a text from his mother informing him that he had been charged
with Battery. Id. at 25. But he never received any paperwork or a court date, which is why he did
not think it necessary to disclose the charges to DOE. Id. at 25–27. He now understands “there’s
no excuse” for his omission. Id. at 27.
Regarding his failure to disclose on multiple QNSPs that he purchased and used marijuana in 2018,
the Individual testified that he “probably just forgot.” Id. at 30–31. He confirmed that 2018 was
the very last time he used marijuana. Id. at 52.
Regarding his failure to disclose that he was terminated from employment in 2018, the Individual
claimed that he was not actually fired from this job, but rather he agreed with his boss that he
would “look for something else.” Id. at 31–32. Later, when confronted with his prior statements
indicating that he was fired for taking too many phone calls from his girlfriend, he admitted, “Yes,
that was one of the reasons, as well.” Id. at 59.
Regarding the February 25, 2018, incident, the Individual stated that he got into an argument with
his father, who was intoxicated, and his father “started pushing” him and “swung on” him. Id. at
39–43. After his father hit him, he stated, “I just turned around and I picked him up and I just put
him down.” Id. at 43. According to the Individual, he did this to try and avoid hurting his father
and to end the disagreement “as lightly as a [sic] possibly could.” Id. He was not arrested or
charged in connection with this incident. Id. at 44–45. When asked why, during his January 2024
security clearance investigation, he denied any interaction with law enforcement in connection
with this incident, the Individual could not give a reason. Id. at 55. He acknowledged that he did
speak with a police officer “a couple days” after the incident. Id.
The Individual acknowledged that he was arrested and charged with DUI in 2016 and received a
speeding ticket in 2017. Id. at 45. With respect to the man who got a restraining order against him
in 2015, the Individual testified, “his daughter was trying to . . . date me, and he didn’t like that
- 7 -
she would leave his house without his permission and come and see me, so then that’s why he got
a restraining order.” Id. at 48.
When asked if he has taken any action to address his repeated involvement in incidents of
criminality and violence, the Individual testified that he has “completely stopped drinking” and
that he no longer puts himself “in any situation to fight with anybody.” Id. at 19–20. He
acknowledged that he is still in a relationship with his girlfriend. Id. at 26. They attended “five or
six” counseling sessions together around April 2024, and presently they attend bible study together
at church. Id. at 26, 34. As of the hearing date, they had both stopped drinking. Id. Regarding the
Individual’s altercations with his girlfriend in 2024, the Individual characterized them as
“unfortunate events” and blamed his girlfriend for starting the arguments. Id. at 47. He understands
now that alcohol caused their arguments to escalate. Id. Although he still finds himself getting into
“major fights,” he credits his abstinence as allowing him to handle these arguments more maturely
and to “walk away from the problem.” Id. at 49, 52. With regard to all of the pre-2018 incidents,
the Individual stated, “I was just kind of like a dumb kid.” Id.
The Individual admitted he had not followed the recommendations of the Psychologist to
demonstrate rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 36. He had not attended individual therapy, he
had not participated in AA, and he had not submitted to any PEth tests. Id. at 36–37. Nonetheless,
he claimed, he had been abstinent from alcohol for the past seven or eight months.7 Id. He made
the decision to abstain because he wants to do the right thing for his family, he wants to keep his
job, and he recognizes he handles conflict more maturely when sober. Id. at 55–56. The Individual
does not want to go back to drinking, but he acknowledges “[i]t’s not going to be easy.” Id. at 58.
The Psychologist testified after hearing the Individual’s testimony. Id. at 62. In her opinion, even
accepting the Individual had been abstinent for seven or eight months, he would still be in early
remission from his diagnosis of AUD, Mild, and her recommendations for rehabilitation and
reformation would remain the same. Id. As of the date of the hearing, she testified, the Individual
had still not demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual
specifically concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the
requirement to cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated
fully and truthfully;
7 Later, he testified that he consumed his last alcoholic drink in the fall of 2024, which would have been at most six
months prior to the hearing. Tr. at 57.
- 8 -
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or
good judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to
change the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors,
circumstances, or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other
inappropriate behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable
reliability; and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has
ceased, or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the
individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply
with rules and regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
As an initial matter, the mitigating factors at paragraph (b), (e), (f), and (g) are inapplicable to the
facts of this case. The LSO has not alleged any vulnerability to exploitation, manipulation, or
duress, nor do the LSO’s concerns relate to an association with persons involved in criminal
activities. The information regarding the Individual’s omissions does not come from an
unsubstantiated or unreliable source, and the Individual has not claimed that he acted on the advice
of legal counsel or other professional.
Turning to the factor at paragraph (a), the Individual did not make any efforts to correct his
omissions and falsifications before being confronted with the facts. He did not correct his failures
to disclose his 2018 marijuana use and his 2018 termination from employment until he was
confronted by a security clearance investigator in 2024. With regard to his 2021 and 2024 arrests
and criminal charges, the Individual never disclosed them to the LSO on his own initiative.8 And
with regard to the February 2018 altercation with his father, the Individual did not, until the
hearing, correct his misrepresentation to the security clearance investigator that he could not recall
the incident and that he had no interaction with law enforcement that month. As such, the
Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the condition set forth in paragraph (a).
The Individual has also not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraph
(c). The Individual’s omissions were not minor, as they concealed derogatory information about
the Individual’s criminal activity, and they were not infrequent or so long ago, as many of them
continued uncorrected up until the date of the hearing. Moreover, the Individual did not show that
his omissions were the result of any unique circumstances. He offered multiple excuses for his
failures to report, including that he was “nervous” when completing the LOI, that he was not aware
of the reporting requirement applicable to clearance holders, that he never received paperwork
8 Even accepting that the Individual reported his arrests to security guards at the DOE facility where he works, such
disclosure does not satisfy the requirement in DOE Order 472.2A that, as a clearance holder, he must report his arrests
to the LSO.
- 9 -
confirming his criminal charges, that he “forgot” about the underlying criminal incidents, and in
some cases, that he had no reason or excuse at all. None of these excuses constitutes a unique
circumstance that would assure me the omissions are unlikely to recur and do not cast doubt on
the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Finally, the Individual has not demonstrated mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraph
(d). At the hearing, the Individual acknowledged, in some cases, that his omissions were
inexcusable. But he did not present any evidence of counseling or other positive steps taken to
change his unreliable behavior.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the LSO’s Guideline E
concerns based on any of the applicable mitigating factors.
B. Guideline G
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.
The concerns related to the Individual’s alcohol consumption continued up to the date of the
hearing, as he continues to meet sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, and according to
the Psychologist, has failed to demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation. Even accepting the
Individual’s uncorroborated testimony that he has abstained from alcohol since seven or eight
months before the hearing, such a period of time is too short to mitigate an eight-year pattern of
alcohol-related incidents, which began with a DUI in 2016 and continued up until he was charged
with Battery and related crimes in early 2024. Additionally, the Individual has not shown that his
alcohol consumption occurred under any unusual circumstances that make it unlikely to recur or
do not cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. As such, the Individual
has failed to demonstrate mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraph (a).
- 10 -
The Individual has similarly failed to mitigate the Guideline G security concerns under paragraphs
(b), (c), or (d). Although he acknowledges his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use and, at the
hearing, expressed a desire to remain abstinent, he has not followed any of the treatment
recommendations set forth by the Psychologist, nor has he established a 12-month period of
abstinence, which the Psychologist indicated would be necessary to demonstrate reformation. In
fact, the Individual admitted to how difficult it has been to maintain his abstinence, which gives
me little confidence that he has overcome his problem.
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the LSO’s Guideline G
concerns based on any of the applicable mitigating factors.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that could 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 with
the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment
record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
As an initial matter, the mitigating factors at paragraph (b) and (c) are inapplicable to the facts of
this case. The Individual has not alleged that he was pressured or coerced into committing the
criminal acts alleged in the SSC. Nor can I find there is no reliable evidence to support that he
committed the offenses. On the contrary, the frequency of the incidents, along with the detailed
accounts of the police and other witnesses in the record, provides more than sufficient evidence to
convince me that the Individual committed the acts, even in those cases where he denies it.
The Individual’s criminal activity spans a period of nearly ten years, and just in the last four years,
includes three separate incidents that resulted in his being charged with Battery and associated
crimes. As such, I cannot find that sufficient time has elapsed to resolve the related security
concerns. Although alcohol consumption contributed to some of the criminal behavior, as stated
above, the Individual has not successfully resolved the concerns related to his alcohol use, and has
therefore not shown that the circumstances underlying his conduct make it unlikely to recur or do
not cast doubt on his reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. The Individual has failed to
demonstrate mitigation under the conditions set forth in paragraph (a).
Despite a clear pattern of criminal involvement over many years, the Individual has expressed little
if any remorse for his behavior. Even at the hearing, he was reluctant to take responsibility for
- 11 -
harming his girlfriend in February and March 2024 or his girlfriend’s mother in 2021, instead
blaming his behavior on the effects of alcohol consumption or insisting that he was only acting at
the instigation of others. Further, the Individual did not present any evidence of restitution, job
training or higher education, good employment record, or constructive community involvement.
Accordingly, I am unable to find evidence of successful rehabilitation from criminality pursuant
to paragraph (d).
For the foregoing reasons, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the LSO’s Guideline J
concerns based on any of the applicable mitigating factors.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I
find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve any of the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined 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.
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals