PSH-25-0047

*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-25-0047
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 5, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold
an access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter
and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below,
after carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
In late March 2024, a third party reported to the local security office (LSO) that the Individual had
voluntarily submitted to alcohol treatment at an inpatient facility in late March 2024. Exhibit (Ex.)
6 at 23.2 The report indicates that the Individual “had been regularly drinking after work and on
the weekends.” Id. at 23. The Individual was consuming approximately four “shots per sitting[,]
every day after work and on weekends.” Id. at 24. As a result, the Individual decided to “get in
front of it before it becomes an addiction.” Id. at 23.
The LSO subsequently requested that the Individual complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI),
which the Individual signed and submitted in June 2024. Ex. 7. In the LOI response, the Individual
indicated that she completed inpatient treatment in early May 2024. Id. at 25.
As questions still remained, the LSO asked the Individual to undergo a psychological evaluation
conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist), which the Individual
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
completed in July 2024. Ex. 8. In conjunction with the evaluation, the Individual submitted to a
phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test.3 Id. at 39. The DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report) of
his findings in August 2024. Id. In the Report, the DOE Psychologist concluded that pursuant to
the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-
TR), the Individual suffered from Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, in Early Remission,
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation Id. at 40. Accordingly, the DOE
Psychologist made a series of recommendations through which the Individual could show adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified her that it possessed reliable information that created
a substantial doubt regarding her continued eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of
Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. The Notification Letter informed the Individual that she was
entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve the substantial doubt regarding her
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 her own behalf and presented the testimony of her partner, her stepdaughter, her
colleague, her aftercare clinical counselor, her AA sponsor, and a licensed alcohol and drug abuse
counselor from the inpatient treatment program she attended. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0047 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The Individual also submitted fourteen
exhibits, marked Exhibits A through N. The DOE Counsel submitted eleven exhibits marked as
Exhibits 1 through 11 and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
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 the “habitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point if impaired judgment[,]” and “diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder[.] Id. at ¶ 22(c)‒(d). Under
Guideline G, the LSO alleged that the August 2024 Report indicates that the DOE Psychologist
diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, in Early Remission, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also alleged that the Individual “admitted that
beginning approximately three years ago until March 2024, she would consume approximately
four shots of vodka daily and drink to intoxication weekly[.]”Id. the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
G is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
3 PEth tests “detect[] any significant alcohol use over the past three to four weeks.” Ex. 8 at 39.
3
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
The Individual indicated in response to the LOI and during the psychological evaluation that she
consumed alcohol socially for approximately twenty years, drinking to intoxication on a “less than
monthly” basis and occasionally abstaining from alcohol for weeks at a time. Ex. 8 at 37; Ex. 7 at
27‒28. Her consumption increased around 2021, and by October 2023, the Individual was
consuming “two to six [one-and-a-half] ounce shots of vodka,” “on a semi-daily basis.” Ex. 8 at
37. When her partner noticed her increased alcohol consumption, the Individual began consuming
“‘in secret’ in order to ‘take the edge off and feel more relaxed.’” Id. The Individual began drinking
alcohol “most days of the week[,] if not daily, often consuming four to six ounces of vodka over
two to three hours.” Id.; Ex. 7 at 28. The Individual’s partner voiced her concern over the
Individual’s alcohol consumption in late March 2024, prompting the Individual to immediately
seek inpatient treatment. Ex. 8 at 37; Ex. 7 at 29; Tr. at 73–74, 103. The Individual sought
treatment in late March 2024, because she felt that her “alcohol intake was becoming more frequent
and that [her] tolerance was getting higher[.]”4 Ex. 7 at 30. As a result, she “wanted to curtail [any]
potential negative impact on [her] life.” Id. at 30; Tr. at 103.
The Individual attended a residential inpatient treatment program from late March 2024 to early
May 2024, where she was diagnosed with AUD, Severe. Ex. 8 at 37; Tr. at 19, 103, 105. She
initially spent several days in a detoxification unit when she entered inpatient treatment, and as she
had only suffered “a slight tremor[,]” she was moved to the regular treatment unit. Ex. 8 at 37. Her
treatment included weekly individual therapy sessions, group therapy sessions, meditation,
education regarding recovery skills, relapse prevention, yoga, mindfulness training, grief support
4 The Individual told the DOE Psychologist and indicated in the LOI response that she last consumed alcohol the day
she was admitted into inpatient care, when she consumed two ounces of vodka over the span of two hours. Ex. 8 at
37; Ex. 7 at 28.
4
groups, “individual reflection time,” and dance therapy. Tr. at 13–14, 109. Upon her successful
completion of the inpatient treatment program, it was recommended for the Individual to transition
to an intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP), attend ninety Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
meetings in ninety days, secure a sponsor, work the Twelve Steps, and follow-up with her primary
care doctor. Ex. H at 1; Tr. at 103–04.
The Individual continued her treatment via an IOP upon her discharge from inpatient treatment in
May 2024 and completed the program the day before the July 2024 psychological evaluation. Ex.
8 at 37; Ex. 10 at 74; Ex. 7 at 26; Ex. H at 1; Ex. I; Tr. at 105–06. The Individual opted to participate
in one “to continue learning positive life skills” and because she felt that it was “a natural
progression on [her] road to lifelong sobriety.” Ex. 7 at 27. Pursuant to the IOP, the Individual
completed thirty group therapy sessions, ten individual therapy sessions, three “community
support meetings,” and random drug and alcohol urine tests. Ex. 8 at 38; Ex. 10 at 74; Ex. 7 at 27;
Ex. D; Tr. at 105–06, 108.
Also in May 2024, the Individual voluntarily reached out to her employer’s Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) “to develop a monitoring contract.” Ex. 8 at 38; Ex. J; Tr. at 107. The monitoring
contract will remain in effect for twenty-four months, and pursuant to the agreement, the Individual
meets with an EAP doctor on monthly basis, submits to a PEth test every four to five weeks,5
submits to “random drug and breath alcohol tests each month in [the EAP] laboratory[,]”6 and
agrees to continue with her treatment via an aftercare program and AA meetings. Ex. 8 at 38; Ex.
J; Tr. at 64, 107. Pursuant to the monitoring contract, the Individual’s noncompliance will be
reported to her management.7 Ex. J.
Following her discharge from inpatient treatment in July 2024, the Individual began attending
aftercare, began keeping logs of the AA meetings she attended, and secured a sponsor.8 Ex. 8 at
38; Ex. E; Tr. at 104, 106–07. Aftercare consists of one group therapy session per week and one
individual therapy session per week.9 Tr. at 106.
As indicated above, the Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist in July 2024. Ex. 8.
The DOE Psychologist indicated in the Report that in order for the Individual to show adequate
5 The Individual submitted to eleven PEth tests from May 2024 to March 2025, all of which were negative. Ex. A; Ex.
8 at 38; Ex. M.
6 From May 2024 to March 2025, the Individual submitted to eleven breath alcohol tests and eleven drug tests, all of
which were negative. Ex. B; Ex. C; Tr at 108.
7 The EAP doctor described the Individual as “exceptionally well-motivated to succeed in all aspects of her recovery.”
Ex. J. The EAP doctor noted that the Individual has an “excellent” prognosis. Id.
8 The Individual submitted AA attendance logs that indicate that from July 2024 to March 2025, she attended over
seventy AA meetings. Ex. E. The Individual testified that she began attending AA meetings in March 2024, attending
the recommended ninety meetings in ninety days. Tr. at 64, 104, 128. The Individual has collected sixteen AA chips.
Ex. F. She testified that she does not “intend to ever stop going to AA.” Tr. at 135.
9 At the time of the hearing, the Individual was still attending aftercare. Tr. at 106. Throughout her time in the IOP
and aftercare, the Individual submitted to twenty-one drug and alcohol urine tests from May 2024 to March 2025, all
of which were negative. Ex. D.
5
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, she should abstain from alcohol for the span of at least
twelve months and continue attending AA meetings twice per week upon the completion of the
aftercare program in which she was participating. Ex. 8 at 40. The Individual should also maintain
her AA sponsor and document her participation in AA meetings via a sign-in sheet. Id. The DOE
Psychologist indicated that “the total time in all treatments combined should equal not less than
one year[,]” and that “[o]nline programs are not acceptable.” Id. Lastly, the Individual should
submit to PEth tests “at least once every four to six weeks over the course of twelve months.” Id.
The alcohol and drug abuse counselor from the inpatient facility that the Individual attended
testified in the March 2025 hearing that the Individual not only saw him for weekly individual
therapy sessions, but she also informally kept him abreast of matters by engaging him in discussion
outside of their usual counseling hours. Tr. at 12–14. Accordingly, he had daily contact with the
Individual while she was in the inpatient facility. Id. at 14. He described the Individual’s
participation as “miraculous, active, engaged, resilient, creative, and courageous[,]” and stated that
the Individual “did an incredible job[.]” Id. He noted that the Individual “did a great job of
personalizing the brain disease of addiction, which . . . reduce[d] shame and reduce[d] . . . the
bargaining and denial [stages.]” Id. at 14–15. The alcohol and drug abuse counselor indicated that
the Individual was quite honest and forthright, and that she “completed her treatment plan [and]
followed the aftercare recommendations.” Id. at 16. He confirmed in his testimony that the
Individual told him that she has no intention of drinking alcohol in the future, and that she “[w]ill
protect her recovery, no matter what.” Id. at 18.
The Individual’s IOP aftercare clinical counselor testified that he first began seeing the Individual
in July 2024, and that they continue to meet on a weekly basis. Id. at 33–34. The clinical counselor
confirmed that in addition to seeing him, the Individual also attends a weekly aftercare group. Id.
at 34–35. He described the Individual’s participation as “remarkable” and “consistent,” and
described the Individual as “curious.” Id. at 35. With him, the Individual learns better
communication skills, “thought stopping techniques to address triggers,” how to be aware of
triggers, and how to set boundaries, and also sets goals, and participates in mindfulness activities
and meditation. Id. at 35, 109. They have also done some grief counseling together. Id. He
confirmed that the Individual has been compliant with his treatment recommendations, and that
she is aware that AUD “is a chronic condition[.]” Id. at 36. He stated that her prognosis is excellent,
and feels that of all of his clients, “she stands a greater chance . . . to maintain stable abstinence
into the future.” Id. at 37. The clinical counselor confirmed that although she suffers from AUD,
Moderate to Severe, the Individual is currently in sustained remission. Id. at 38. He said that the
Individual understands that in the past, “drinking [did not] improve her life,” and accordingly, “it
has no appeal” for her. Id. at 42.
The Individual’s colleague of fifteen years testified that the Individual “has always been a good
member of [their] team.” Id. at 49–50. He indicated that her staff holds her in “very high regard”
and noted that she is trusted with a “high level of responsibility.” Id. at 50–51. The Individual’s
colleague stated that he has “for years, treated her as a confidant . . . for many issues.” Id. at 51.
He never suspected that the Individual had issues with alcohol and asserted that her past alcohol
consumption had not impacted her work performance. Id. He described her as reliable and “highly
trustworthy,” and noted that she exhibits good judgment. Id. at 51–52.
6
The Individual’s partner of nearly two decades testified that the Individual’s stressors began
around 2020, following the passing of a loved one. Id. at 59–60. The Individual held “a lot of
resentment and anger” over the fact that she could not ensure her loved one’s preferred burial. Id.
at 61. The Individual was also experiencing a considerable amount of stress caring for her elderly
parents, which was in addition to routine work stress. Id. at 61–62. Ultimately, the Individual
recognized that the stress had resulted in her alcohol use, and she sought help to remedy the matter.
Id. at 62. The Individual’s partner supported the Individual’s decision to seek inpatient treatment
and remained abreast of the Individual’s progress in the program. Id. at 62–63. The Individual’s
partner also attended approximately five or six AA meetings in support of the Individual, as well
as family nights hosted by the IOP. Id. at 63. She also attends individual therapy to help her
understand the Individual’s struggles and to learn how to be of greater support to the Individual.
Id. She noted that now, the Individual is “more positive, and a lot less stressed.” Id. at 65. The
couple no longer keeps alcohol in the home, and the Individual’s partner does not drink alcohol.
Id. at 66. She noted that the Individual has a robust support system, which includes her, her
extended family, and her daughter, as well as the friends the Individual has made through AA. Id.
She confirmed that the Individual wants to “remain sober for the rest of her life.” Id.
The Individual’s stepdaughter, who the Individual raised, testified that she is supportive of the
Individual’s sobriety. Id. at 83–85. She confirmed that although the Individual has been around
alcohol, she has neither seen the Individual consume alcohol since March 2024, nor has she heard
the Individual express a desire to drink. Id. at 85. She has seen the Individual “surround[] herself
with like-minded people [who] are also in treatment.” Id. at 86. This has proven helpful to the
Individual’s ongoing endeavor to remain abstinent from alcohol. Id. She confirmed that the
Individual no longer uses alcohol to cope with stressful situations. Id. at 87. Instead, the Individual
uses coping mechanisms like spending time with family, playing sports, and attending aftercare
and AA meetings. Id.
The Individual’s AA sponsor testified that she speaks to the Individual on a bi-weekly basis, at
minimum. Id. at 92. She described the Individual as an active participant in AA, and someone who
shares, is honest, and contributes to meetings. Id. at 93. They are working the Twelve Steps of AA
together and are currently “halfway through the fourth step.” Id. The Individual’s AA sponsor
confirmed that the Individual identifies herself as an alcoholic at meetings, that the Individual does
not intend to drink alcohol again, that the Individual attends three to four meetings per week, and
that she “goes out and does fellowship” after meetings. Id. at 93–95.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had shown adequate evidence
of rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 140. He noted that his initial impression of the Individual
was of someone “invested in treatment,” but someone who “[had not] had enough time[.]” Id. at
140–41. He indicated that the Individual had been “very open about her alcohol problem” and she
“[did not] appear to want to minimize any of it[.]” Id. at 141. He indicated that the Individual
satisfied his recommendations, and that she had an excellent prognosis. Id. at 141–43.
V. Analysis
7
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
The Individual’s actions since March 2024 have been above reproach. The Individual recognized
that her alcohol consumption had become maladaptive and swiftly enrolled in an inpatient
treatment program when her partner voiced her concerns in March 2024. Once she successfully
completed the program, she opted to comply with the recommendations made by the inpatient
treatment facility and enrolled in an IOP. Upon her completion of the IOP, the Individual began
attending aftercare, a program she was still attending at the time of the hearing. She has thoroughly
altered her lifestyle to achieve her ambition of remaining abstinent. She attends therapy on a
weekly basis, attends AA meetings multiple times a week, and has constructed a robust support
network. The record is replete with negative PEth and urine tests, spanning as far back as March
2024. Witnesses involved in the Individual’s treatment described the Individual’s participation in
extremely positive terms, impressing upon me the Individual’s earnest desire to remain sober, as
well as the depth of her commitment. It is unsurprising then that the Individual’s IOP aftercare
clinical counselor and the DOE Psychologist both determined that the Individual has an excellent
prognosis. Finally, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual has complied with his
recommendations and, accordingly, has shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation and
reformation. The Individual has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factors (b)
and (c).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G 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 brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
8
the Guideline G concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that
restoring her 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 be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals