PSH-25-0045

*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 12, 2024 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0045
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 2, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 was granted access authorization in January 2020 in connection with his
employment by a DOE contractor. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0045 (Tr.) at 77.
On September 27, 2023, the Individual submitted a Personnel Security Information Report (PSIR)
to the local security office (LSO) disclosing that he had been arrested and charged with Driving
Under the Influence (DUI). Exhibit (Ex.) 12 at 50.2 On June 4, 2024, the Individual was required
to undergo a workplace breath alcohol test (BAT) which estimated his blood alcohol content
(BAC) at .063 g/210L. Ex. 7 at 28 (summarizing the results of an investigation into the matter by
a DOE contractor in a July 2024 PSIR). In response to two letters of interrogatory (the 2023 LOI
and 2024 LOI) issued to him by the LSO concerning these incidents, the Individual reported that
he consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication on a monthly basis. Ex. 13 at 59; Ex. 14 at 67.
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 -
On September 9, 2024, the Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist)
for a psychiatric evaluation. Ex. 15 at 73. During the evaluation, the Individual disclosed to the
DOE Psychiatrist that on the morning of his positive workplace BAT he had avoided using a
personal vehicle outfitted with an interlock device that he was required to install following his DUI
and chose to drive to work in another vehicle despite likely being intoxicated. Id. at 74‒75.
Following the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report (Report) in which she opined that
the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, under
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5). Id. at
78‒79.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 7‒9. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id. at 6.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted seventeen exhibits (Ex. 1–17). The Individual submitted eight exhibits (Ex. A–H).3 The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of a counselor employed by the
DOE contractor’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a personal friend, and a facilitator at an
intensive outpatient (IOP) treatment program he attended. Tr. at 3, 11, 24, 38, 53. The LSO offered
the testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at 3, 82.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 6.
“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. The SSC alleged that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol
to the point of impaired judgment and cited the Individual’s DUI charge, use of an alternative
vehicle while under the influence to bypass an interlock device installed on his vehicle, positive
workplace BAT, and the opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist that the Individual met sufficient
diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, under the DSM-5. Ex. 1 at 6. The LSO’s
allegations that the Individual engaged in alcohol-related incidents both away from work and at
work, habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, was diagnosed with AUD,
and failed to follow an alcohol-related court order justify its invocation of Guideline G.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a)‒(d), (g).
3 The Individual’s initial Exhibit C – an Alcoholics Anonymous sign-in sheet submitted on April 4, 2025 – was
replaced by an updated version submitted on April 21, 2025.
- 3 -
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).
An individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her 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
The Individual began consuming alcohol as a minor and by 2023 he was consuming alcohol to
intoxication on an approximately monthly basis. Ex. 14 at 67 (reporting in response to the 2023
LOI that he would consume “about 5 drinks in an hour or two” to the point of intoxication); Ex.
15 at 74 (stating in the psychiatric evaluation that he began consuming alcohol as a minor); Tr. at
32 (testimony of the Individual’s friend that the Individual’s alcohol consumption reached its
highest point in 2023 and that there were no significant events going on in the Individual’s life to
which she attributed his elevated drinking); Tr. at 74 (testimony of the Individual that this drinking
occurred at a time when he “didn’t have an identity”). A friend of the Individual talked to the
Individual numerous times regarding her perception that his alcohol consumption was negatively
affecting him and his relationships with loved ones because he would “skip out [] on work,”
“seeing [his] daughter” over whom he has partial custody, and social events due to his alcohol
consumption and that he would lie about his alcohol consumption. Tr. at 25, 30‒31.
On September 23, 2023, the Individual was arrested and charged with DUI. Ex. 12 at 52. A
breathalyzer test conducted during the traffic stop that led to the Individual’s arrest estimated his
BAC at .15 g/210L. See Ex. 15 at 74 (reflecting information gathered by the DOE Psychiatrist as
part of the psychiatric evaluation). The Individual began abstaining from alcohol immediately after
his DUI arrest. Tr. at 58; Ex. 14 at 67 (reflecting information provided by the Individual in response
to the 2023 LOI). That same month, at the direction of the DOE contractor, the Individual enrolled
in a twelve-week intensive outpatient program (IOP) for alcohol-related treatment. Id. at 69; Ex.
15 at 74. The Individual completed the IOP in February 2024. Ex. 15 at 74. Later that month, the
Individual resumed alcohol consumption. Tr. at 58; see also id. at 78 (testifying that he did not
- 4 -
take the IOP seriously or accept that he had a problem with alcohol); Ex. 13 at 59 (indicating in
his August 2024 response to the 2024 LOI that he consumed alcohol to intoxication about once
monthly); Tr. at 33 (testimony of the Individual’s friend that the Individual intended to abstain
from alcohol following his DUI, but that his alcohol consumption “started up slowly again” with
a few alcoholic drinks “here and there”).
The Individual pleaded guilty to the DUI charge, and, pursuant to a March 2024 sentence, he was
ordered to pay fines and fees, perform community service, and serve a one-year term of supervised
probation. Ex. 9 at 36‒39. Pursuant to the terms of the Individual’s probation, he was required to,
among other things, abstain from alcohol, have an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle,
and not operate any vehicle except that on which the ignition interlock device was installed. Id. at
38.
On the evening of June 3, 2024, into the early morning of June 4, 2024, the Individual consumed
four 16-ounce beers and four shots of bourbon. Ex. 13 at 59; see also Ex. 15 at 74‒75 (reflecting
calculations performed by the DOE Psychiatrist that corroborated the accuracy of the Individual’s
self-described alcohol consumption). The Individual drove to work the following morning,
although he was probably intoxicated, because he “felt fine to drive.” Ex. 15 at 74‒75. The
Individual chose to use a vehicle other than the one on which the court-ordered ignition interlock
device was installed to drive to work. Id. When the Individual began work at a DOE site on June
4, 2024, at approximately 7:00 AM, one of his colleagues smelled alcohol on his breath. Ex. 13 at
55; Ex. 15 at 75. The Individual was required to undergo a BAT, the results of which estimated
his BAC at .063 g/210L. Ex. 7 at 28.
Following his positive workplace BAT, the DOE contractor placed the Individual on a fitness for
duty (FFD) evaluation program pursuant to which he was required to undergo periodic alcohol
testing. Ex. G at 1. From June 17, 2024, to August 14, 2024, the Individual underwent eight random
ethyl glucuronide tests as part of the FFD program, each of which was negative for traces of
alcohol. Id. at 2. On August 13, 2024, pursuant to the FFD program, the Individual began providing
samples for Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)4 testing on an approximately monthly basis. Ex. E. As of
the date of the hearing, the Individual had undergone eight PEth tests from August 2024 to April
2025 as part of the FFD program, each of which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption.
Id. at 1‒7; Ex. H.
The Individual also enrolled in an educational class related to alcohol misuse through his
employer’s EAP, which he completed on August 29, 2024. Ex. D. The class, which was conducted
on a weekly basis, educated students on topics such as quantifying a standard drink of alcohol,
learning how alcohol interacts with the human body, and stages of recovery from alcohol misuse
through facilitated discussions, presentations, and a course workbook. Tr. at 13‒14. The Individual
completed a second class through his employer’s EAP, in February 2025, which provided
resources related to abstinence from alcohol. Ex. F. This class required participants to abstain from
alcohol and included mindfulness activities, group discussions on issues participants were facing,
and guest speakers who spoke on their recovery experiences and strategies. Tr. at 15. According
4 PEth is a biomarker for alcohol consumption that can be detected in blood for up to four weeks following moderate
or greater episodes of alcohol consumption. Ex. 15 at 76, 80.
- 5 -
to the EAP Counselor, the Individual attended as required, was an attentive participant, and
reported that he found the classes helpful to him. Id. at 16. The EAP Counselor expressed the
opinion that the Individual was more open and expressive than when he began attending the
classes, which she considered to be positive to his recovery. Id. at 16‒17.
On September 9, 2024, the Individual met with the DOE Psychiatrist for the psychiatric evaluation.
Ex. 15 at 73. The Individual denied having consumed alcohol since June 4, 2024, but also denied
believing that he had an issue with alcohol and indicated that he was considering “returning to
moderate drinking at some point.” Id. at 75. At the request of the DOE Psychiatrist, the Individual
provided a blood sample for a PEth test. Id. at 80. The results of the PEth test were negative, which
the DOE Psychiatrist found to be indicative that the Individual had consumed “minimal to no”
alcohol during the four weeks prior to the test. Id. at 76.
The DOE Psychiatrist issued her Report on September 23, 2024. Id. at 79. In the Report, the DOE
Psychiatrist listed the eleven DSM-5 AUD diagnostic criteria and the DSM-5’s instruction that the
presence of two or three diagnostic criteria are consistent with a “Mild” severity of AUD, four or
five criteria are consistent with a “Moderate” severity, and six or more criteria are consistent with
“Severe” AUD. Id. at 77‒78. She opined that the Individual met two diagnostic criteria for AUD
under the DSM-5, and thus that the Individual’s AUD was “Mild.” Id. at 77‒79. Specifically, she
found that the Individual had demonstrated “recurrent alcohol use in situations in which it is
physically hazardous” based on the Individual having reported to work intoxicated and repeatedly
operated a vehicle while intoxicated, and she concluded that the Individual demonstrated alcohol
tolerance based on his own reporting and his not feeling impaired when he drove to work
intoxicated on June 4, 2024. Id. at 77‒78. At the hearing, she testified that she did not find
additional criteria applicable because the Individual expressly denied that his alcohol use impaired
his work, social life, or relationships.5 Tr. at 84, 86; see infra p. 7 (discussing information revealed
at the hearing that led the DOE Psychiatrist to update her opinion). She recommended that the
Individual demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation by completing an IOP, attending an aftercare
program for an additional three months, and demonstrating a minimum of six months of abstinence
from alcohol through monthly PEth testing. Ex. 15 at 79.
Approximately one week prior to the psychiatric evaluation, the FFD required the Individual to
reenroll in the IOP in which he previously participated. Ex. B at 5; Tr. at 66. Clinicians at the IOP
diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Moderate, in early remission. Ex. B at 5. The Individual
participated in the IOP for six months, the first three months of which included weekly
psychoeducational group classes, individual counseling, and SMART sessions, as well as biweekly
group therapy. Id.; see also Tr. at 39‒41 (testimony of IOP facilitator describing the IOP); Tr. at
58 (testimony of the Individual that the first three months of the IOP was the same program he had
previously completed in February 2024). For the second three-month period of treatment, the
Individual continued weekly SMART sessions and also attended weekly group therapy related to
“moral recognition” which provided participants with education related to taking responsibility for
5 The DOE Psychiatrist’s testimony implicates three additional potential diagnostic criteria: “recurrent alcohol use
result[ing] in a failure to fulfill major obligations at work, school, or home,” “continued alcohol use despite having
persistent or recurrant social or interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol,” and
“important social, occupational, or recreational activities are given up or reduced because of alcohol use.” Ex. 15 at
77 (listing the DSM-5 diagnostic criteria for AUD).
- 6 -
their actions and accountability for their choices. Tr. at 39, 43. The Individual successfully
completed the IOP on March 21, 2025. Ex. B at 2. In a letter dated March 25, 2025, a licensed
clinical social worker (LCSW) employed by the IOP reported that the Individual had fully
complied with the treatment process and “appear[ed] to have developed an understanding of his
triggers, a healthy way to deal with unwanted feelings and thoughts, and a feeling of worthiness
in himself,” all of which were “indicators of recovery” according to the LCSW. Id. at 5. The IOP
facilitator perceived the Individual to have demonstrated “great change” during his participation
in the IOP, from initially being “a little guarded” to fully and actively participating in the program.
Tr. at 44‒45.
Following completion of the IOP, the Individual enrolled in aftercare programming offered by the
IOP. Ex. B at 5. The IOP’s aftercare consists of group therapy sessions to discuss challenges and
successes in recovery. Tr. at 45. According to the LCSW, the Individual will “remain in aftercare
for 3 to 6 months.” Ex. B at 5.
On December 18, 2024, a judge ordered the Individual’s early release from probation upon the
recommendation of the Individual’s probation officer. Ex. A. The probation officer indicated in a
submission to the court that the Individual had paid all court-ordered fines and fees, performed
required community service, and had tested negative for traces of alcohol on all urinalysis tests he
underwent. Id.
On March 17, 2025, the Individual began attending AA meetings. Ex. C. The Individual testified
that he had obtained an AA sponsor and was working the first step of the twelve steps of the AA
program. Tr. at 71. However, the Individual was unable to identify any of the steps of the AA
program. Id.; see also id. at 80 (testifying that he and the AA sponsor were “going over methods
on how to . . . keep up the love for myself and how to . . . deal with feelings of unworthiness”); but
see The Twelve Steps, ALCOHOLICS ANONYMOUS, aa.org/the-twelve-steps (last visited Apr. 18,
2025) (indicating that the first step of AA is “admitt[ing] we were powerless over alcohol – that
our lives had become unmanageable”). As of the date of the hearing, the Individual had attended
seven AA meetings. Ex. C. The Individual testified that, although he intended to attend AA
meetings twice weekly, he had missed three AA meetings he intended to attend and cited working
out at a gym as one reason for missing the AA meetings. Tr. at 75, 79.
The Individual testified at the hearing that he had abstained from alcohol since June 2024. Tr. at
64; see also Ex. E at 1‒7; Ex. H (negative PEth tests from August 2024 to April 2025). The
Individual initially struggled to abstain from alcohol but stopped thinking about returning to
alcohol consumption in December 2024 or January 2025 and no longer experiences difficulty
abstaining from alcohol when spending time with friends who do consume alcohol. Tr. at 64‒65,
76; see also id. at 28‒29 (testimony of Individual’s friend that the Individual told her that he had
struggled to abstain from alcohol for several months, but that consuming alcohol no longer crosses
his mind). The Individual testified that he had identified “feelings of unworthiness” as a trigger for
alcohol consumption. Id. at 70. He uses exercise, listening to podcasts, and social support from
family and friends to deal with negative feelings in lieu of alcohol and to support his sobriety. Id.
at 67, 69; see also id. at 29 (testimony of the Individual’s friend that she and the Individual’s family
support him in abstaining from alcohol). The Individual plans to continue attending AA meetings
and aftercare through the IOP, and to abstain from alcohol. Id. at 74‒76; see also id. at 19
- 7 -
(testimony of EAP counselor that the Individual told her that his life had improved since he began
abstaining from alcohol and that his intentions with respect to abstinence were “for now no
alcohol”).
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that the IOP’s diagnosis of the Individual with AUD, Moderate,
was likely more accurate than her previous diagnosis of AUD, Mild, in light of the testimony from
the Individual and the Individual’s friend that alcohol negatively affected his professional, social,
and relational functioning. Id. at 84. Had she been aware of these impairments when she authored
the Report, she would have extended her recommendation for demonstrating abstinence from
alcohol though PEth testing to one year and recommended lifelong AA participation for the
Individual. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual demonstrated substantially
improved insight into the negative effects alcohol has had on his life since the psychiatric
evaluation, and that social support from the Individual’s friend and his family for his abstinence
was a positive indicator of recovery. Id. at 85‒86. The DOE Psychiatrist further opined that the
Individual’s prognosis was “very good” and that she estimated his risk of relapse at “3[ or] 4” out
of 10, with 10 representing the highest likelihood of relapse. Id. at 90. However, she testified that
the Individual’s AUD would not be in sustained remission until he achieved one year of abstinence
from alcohol, that she would not conclude that the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation until
he demonstrated several additional months of abstinence, and that it would be important to make
sure that the Individual “stays with his sponsor with AA” and reaches at least step three or four of
the twelve steps of AA. Id. at 88‒90, 92, 94. The DOE Psychiatrist indicated that, although she did
not recommend AA attendance in her Report, she believed that it was extremely important for the
Individual in light of her updated understanding of the severity of the Individual’s AUD and that
he would be at “much higher risk” of relapse if he stopped attending. Id. at 92‒93.
V. ANALYSIS
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; or,
- 8 -
(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 Individual engaged in a pattern of alcohol misuse, including becoming intoxicated on an at
least monthly basis, that persisted until June 2024. As the Individual’s alcohol misuse occurred at
least monthly over an extended period of time, and persisted until less than a year prior to the
hearing, the behavior was not infrequent and the passage of time is insufficient to mitigate the
security concerns presented by the Individual’s behavior. Moreover, the Individual did not identify
any circumstances that would lead me to conclude that his alcohol misuse occurred under unusual
circumstances. Accordingly, the first mitigating condition is inapplicable to the facts of this case.
Id. at ¶ 23(a).
The Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use, and participated in an IOP, EAP
classes, and AA to address his alcohol misuse. He has also abstained from alcohol for
approximately ten months, which exceeds the six months recommended in the Report.
Nevertheless, I find the second mitigating condition inapplicable. The Individual previously
successfully completed the same IOP he most recently completed, albeit for half of the duration of
his most recent treatment, and abstained from alcohol for over four months. Despite these positive
indications, the Individual relapsed almost immediately when he was no longer subject to alcohol
monitoring by the IOP, and in doing so violated the terms of his probation and presented to work
either intoxicated or nearly so. In light of the previous failure of the IOP to rehabilitate the
Individual, I am skeptical of the extent to which repeating his participation has demonstrated
effective action to overcome this problem on the part of the Individual. While the Individual has
also completed EAP classes, they are far less intensive than the IOP that failed to previously
rehabilitate the Individual and I do not believe that they will significantly influence the Individual’s
recovery compared to an IOP.
The Individual asserted that his first participation in the IOP was ineffective because he did not
accept that he had a problematic relationship with alcohol and did not take the IOP seriously. I
find that the Individual’s AA participation reflects a similar lack of seriousness with respect to
maintaining his recovery. The lack of evidence that the Individual has an AA sponsor as he claims,
his inability to name the first AA step that he claimed to be working on, and his testimony that his
work with his sponsor on the first step of AA consisted of self-acceptance, which bears no relation
to the admission of powerlessness over alcohol that is the first step of AA, strongly suggests that
the Individual is not actively participating in AA even if he is attending meetings. Moreover,
despite committing to attending AA twice weekly, the Individual’s attendance has been sporadic.
The Individual’s explanation for missing AA meetings indicated that he prioritized other activities
over AA attendance. While the Individual is voluntarily attending AA and was not directed to do
so in the Report, I find that the Individual’s inconsistent and insubstantial AA participation is likely
to foreshadow his approach to managing his AUD when he is no longer subject to monitoring and
directed treatment.
- 9 -
Finally, although the Individual has demonstrated a longer pattern of abstinence than that
recommended in the Report, the DOE Psychiatrist’s recommendation in that regard was based on
the information that she had available at that time. With the benefit of the information provided in
the hearing, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual’s AUD was more severe than she
had realized when she authored the Report. The DOE Psychiatrist’s updated conclusion is
supported by the “Moderate” severity of the Individual’s AUD diagnosed during his most recent
participation in the IOP and the testimony of the Individual and his friend that the Individual
missed work, social gatherings, and time with his daughter due to alcohol use, which reflects
social, professional, and relational impairments corresponding to DSM-5 diagnostic criteria that
the DOE Psychiatrist previously found absent. See infra note 5. With the benefit of this
information, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual’s abstinence to date was
insufficient to establish rehabilitation and that she would have recommended a one-year period of
abstinence if she had the additional information at the time she authored the Report. The
appropriateness of the “Moderate” AUD diagnosis is not in dispute as the DOE Psychiatrist and
IOP both now share that conclusion. In light of the DOE Psychiatrist’s updated opinion, and in
consideration of the Individual’s history of relapsing following treatment and abstinence, I find
that the Individual’s current ten months of abstinence from alcohol is not sufficiently established
to find the second mitigating condition applicable. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the
Individual has not established the applicability of the second mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 23(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable to the facts of this case because of the Individual’s
relapse following completion of the IOP for the first time. Id. at ¶ 23(c). While the Individual has
completed the IOP for a second time, I find that he has not established a sufficient period of
abstinence from alcohol in light of the updated severity of his AUD for the reasons previously
discussed. Thus, the fourth mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable, I find that the Individual
has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I
find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
asserted by the LSO. 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.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals