PSH-25-0074

*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: January 28, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0074
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 16, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Diane L. Miles, 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.
(June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access authorization
should not be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. On May 30, 2024, upon arriving at work, the Individual was randomly selected for
alcohol testing, and he underwent two Breath Alcohol Tests (BATs). Exhibit (Ex.) 6 at 22–24. 2
The results of both BATs were positive for alcohol consumption. Id. at 23-24.3
In August 2024, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual seeking information about the Individual’s alcohol consumption. Ex. 7. In the LOI, the
Individual reported that, the night before his positive BATs, he consumed three glasses of
“moderate pours,” of white wine, between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. Id. at 26–27.
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 the 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 the DOE.
3 On May 30, 2024, the Individual took an “initial test,” at 8:18 a.m., the result of which showed his blood alcohol
content was 0.25 g/210L. Ex. 6 at 24. At 8:35 a.m., he took a “confirmatory test,” the result of which was positive at a
level of .021 g/210L. Id.
2
In October 2024, the LSO referred the Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor
Psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview of the Individual and issued
a report (the Report) of her findings. Ex. 8. On October 8, 2024, as part of the evaluation, the
Individual underwent alcohol testing, in the form of a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test,4 the result
of which was positive at a level of 27 ng/mL. Id. at 59. A medical doctor interpreted the
Individual’s PEth test result and determined that the Individual consumed, on average, four
alcoholic drinks per week during the 30 days preceding the test. Id. at 49. Based on her evaluation
of the Individual and the Individual’s PEth test result, the DOE Psychologist opined that the
Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders, Fifth Edition – Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD), Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 51.
In December 2024, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. Ex. 1 at 6–7. 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. Id. at 5.
In January 2025, the Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded the
Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. 2. The Director of OHA
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter. In June 2025, I convened a hearing,
pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from five witnesses: the
Individual, the Individual’s personal psychologist (Individual’s Psychologist); the Individual’s co-
worker; the Individual’s supervisor, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0074 (Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted 10 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1
through 10. The Individual submitted 20 exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through T.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 5.
Under Guideline G, “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. Conditions that could raise a security
concern under Guideline G include “alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work
or duty in an intoxicated or impaired condition . . . ,” and a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical
or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed
clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(b), (d). In invoking Guideline G, the
LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR
4 The Report indicates that “PEth accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell members” and reflects “an
average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28-30 days.” Ex. 8 at 49. “PEth exceeding 20 ng/mL, but
below 200 ng/mL,” is evidence of mild to moderate ethanol consumption. Id.
3
criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
Ex. 1 at 5.5 The LSO also cited the results of the Individual’s May 2024 BATs, which showed that
his BAC was 0.25 g/210L and .021 g/210L, and his admission that he consumed “three glasses of
moderate pours of white wine between 6:30 p.m. and 8:30 p.m. the night prior” to the BATs. Id.
Based on the above-referenced conduct, I find the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline G are
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
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted 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
After his positive May 2024 BATs, the Individual’s employer required the Individual to undergo
an “alcohol and drug assessment evaluation.” Ex. N at 1. In June 2024 the Individual met with an
occupational psychologist (Occupational Psychologist) at his place of employment about his
alcohol consumption, after which the Occupational Psychologist advised the Individual to abstain
from alcohol for a few months and to meet with a Substance Abuse Professional (SAP) at his place
of employment. Ex. 7 at 30; Tr. at 56, 86. On June 19, 2024, the Individual was evaluated by the
SAP, after which the SAP diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Intoxication, Without Use
Disorder, and recommended that the Individual complete 12 hours of online education related to
substance use disorders. Ex. 7 at 30; Ex. N at 1–3. The Individual’s employer also required the
Individual to undergo drug and alcohol testing at his place of employment. Ex. N at 7–8.6 During
5 The LSO also cited the Individual’s October 8, 2024, PEth test result of 27 ng/mL, which suggested that the
Individual consumed, on average, “up to four alcoholic drinks a week within 30 days of the test.” Ex. 1 at 5. While
the result of the Individual’s October 8, 2024, PEth test informed the DOE Psychologist’s opinion, it does not appear
to raise security concerns in of itself and therefore I will not consider it as a discrete security concern.
6 The Individual submitted evidence he underwent eight BATs, between June 2024 and March 2025, and that the
results of these tests were negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. L. The Individual also submitted results of drug
4
the hearing, the Individual testified that he completed both courses, and that the courses taught him
about alcohol’s effects on the body and how prevalent alcohol is in society. Tr. at 84–85.
During his October 2024 evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual reported that after
his May 2024 BATs, he consumed “three or four 12-ounce light beers,” once or twice per month.
Ex. 8 at 48. He also reported that approximately three weeks before the evaluation, he consumed
“2.5 light beers,” and he estimated consuming a total of “six or less beers over the course of the
month leading up to [the] evaluation.” Id. The DOE Psychologist found that, when compared to
his reported alcohol consumption before the evaluation, the Individual’s positive PEth test result
of 27 ng/mL, as interpreted by the medical doctor, suggested he was either minimizing his alcohol
use, or he was in denial about how much he was drinking. Id. at 49–50. She also found that the
Individual’s decision to continue drinking, during a time when his alcohol consumption was under
scrutiny by his employer, and after he was encouraged to abstain from alcohol, suggested that
alcohol was a problem for him. Id. at 50. After the psychological evaluation, the DOE Psychologist
diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Id. at 51. To achieve rehabilitation or reformation from his AUD, Mild, the DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for a minimum of six months,
documented by “PEth tests every two months throughout the period of abstinence.” Id. at 51–52.
The DOE Psychologist also recommended that the Individual attend “either [Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA)], or another evidence-based peer support group (such as SMART Recovery or
12-Step Enhanced Therapy), weekly,” for six months. Id. at 52.
In December 2024, the Individual was still consuming alcohol. Tr. at 77. He claimed that he would
consume “two to three beverages a couple times a week,” and he would drink “a little bit more
during the holidays.” Id. On February 3, 2025, after reading the DOE Psychologist’s
recommendations in the Report, the Individual decided to stop drinking. Id. at 49, 95–96. The
Individual submitted documentary evidence, to support his testimony, that he underwent PEth
testing on March 3, 2025, the results of which were positive at a level of 39 ng/mL. Ex. H; Tr. at
80. The Individual believed that this test was positive because, even though he testified to having
stopped drinking on February 3, 2025, there was still alcohol in his system. Tr. at 88. The
Individual also submitted evidence he took five additional PEth tests, between March 14, 2025,
and June 6, 2025, all of which were negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. I; Ex. J; Ex. K; Ex. Q;
Ex. T.
In February 2025, the Individual began attending AA. He submitted attendance sheets indicating
that from February 13, 2025, to June 7, 2025, he attended AA meetings four to six times a week.
Ex. E; Ex. R; Tr. at 51, 81. As of the hearing, the Individual was on step five of AA’s 12-step
program. Tr. at 60–61. He explained that he is a perfectionist and participating in AA has taught
him to cut himself “a little bit of slack,” and to be less emotional during stressful situations. Id. at
52–54. He believed AA was a good fit for him. Id. at 64. About two months before the hearing,
the Individual obtained an AA sponsor, he testified that he speaks to his sponsor every time he
attends an AA meeting. Id. at 62, 81. He explained that he made friends through the program, and
he has a list of current AA members and chairs that he can use to contact someone to help him
testing, taken in June 2024, August 2024, November 2024, January 2025, February 2025, and March 2025. Ex. M.
The result of each test was negative. Id.
5
work through the program. Id. at 55.7 In April 2025, the Individual began meeting with the
Individual’s Psychologist, who read the DOE Psychologist’s Report, assessed the Individual’s
ability to manage his alcohol use, and issued a report of his findings. Ex. O; Ex. P. The Individual’s
Psychologist’s report indicated that he concurred with the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of AUD,
Mild, and that the Individual’s willingness to continue working through AA suggests progress
toward rehabilitation from his AUD, Mild. Ex. P at 3.
During the hearing, the Individual’s co-worker testified that he has worked with the Individual
since 2010. Tr. at 17–18. He explained that he has never seen the Individual appear to be under
the influence of alcohol while at work, and he has never had concerns about the Individual’s
judgment after having observed the Individual consume alcohol outside of work. Id. at 19, 28. The
Individual’s co-worker was aware the Individual was participating in alcohol treatment, but he
could not provide any details of the Individual’s treatment, and he did not know whether the
Individual intended to consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 26–28. The Individual’s supervisor
testified that after working with the Individual for two and a half years, she had never observed
the Individual appear to be under the influence of alcohol at work. Id. at 17–19. As for his alcohol
treatment, she was aware he was attending AA, but did not know whether the Individual intended
to continue consuming alcohol. Id. at 45–46.
During the hearing, the Individual testified that it was wrong of him to consume an excessive
amount of alcohol the day before he knew he would have to report to work. Tr. at 50–52. He
believed his triggers to drink were being in “high stress situations” and “getting too involved in
work.” Id. at 70. He stated that he sees a therapist weekly, on Fridays. Id. at 57, 59; Ex. G. He
explained that the therapy sessions are not solely focused on his alcohol use, and that he uses the
therapy sessions to discuss his personal values and goals, his work ethic, and to work on becoming
a more “balanced” person. Tr. at 57–58, 63, 66–67. He also stated that he does not intend to
consume alcohol for the foreseeable future. Id. at 50, 65. He explained that he developed a “bond
of trust” with his fellow AA members, and if he resumed drinking alcohol, it would lessen their
belief in him. Id. at 50–51. He intends to continue attending AA, and to continue meeting with his
therapist weekly. Id. at 65, 71–72, 83. When he is not working, he fills up his day with “healthy
activities.” Id. at 71. He does not have a written “relapse prevention plan,” but he testified that the
concept of relapse is discussed during his AA meetings, and if he had an issue abstaining, he would
contact someone on his AA contact list for help. Id. at 76, 82. He also stated that he intends to
continue undergoing alcohol testing as long as he needs to. Id. at 79.8
During the hearing, the Individual’s Psychologist testified that after reading the DOE
Psychologist’s Report and listening to the Individual’s testimony, he concurred with the DOE
Psychologist’s opinion, that the Individual had AUD, Mild, at the time of his psychological
evaluation with the DOE Psychologist. Tr. at 99–100. He further testified that during his evaluation
of the Individual, the Individual showed signs of accepting that he had an alcohol problem, but he
perceived that the Individual needed to abstain from drinking and that he needed a program of
recovery. Id. at 101. He believed that, as of the June 2025 hearing, the Individual’s prognosis was
“quite good” because he had shown he can abstain from drinking alcohol for a considerable period,
7 The Individual submitted sworn statements from his wife, two friends, and two co-workers, and his supervisor, in
support of his character and efforts to remain abstinent from alcohol. Ex. A; Ex. B; Ex. C; Ex. D; Ex. F; Ex. S.
8 After the hearing, the Individual submitted evidence that on June 6, 2025, he underwent PEth testing, the results of
which were negative for the presence of alcohol. Ex. T.
6
and had been working through AA for four months, which were positive signs toward recovery.
Id. at 101–02, 106–07. He believed the Individual was committed to making significant changes
in his life that would “likely mean” that he would abstain from alcohol in the future, but he was
still in the process of rehabilitation from his AUD, Mild. Id. at 104, 111–12.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing
and reviewing the Individual’s exhibits, the Individual was not yet rehabilitated or reformed from
his AUD, Mild. Tr. at 121. She agreed with the opinion of the Individual’s Psychologist that, as of
the hearing, the Individual was still in the process of recovery. Id. She did not believe the Individual
had received enough treatment for her to have confidence he understood the nature of his alcohol
problem and that his problematic alcohol consumption would not resume. Id. She explained that
during her evaluation, she found that the Individual did not recognize that he had a drinking
problem because he was still consuming alcohol. Id. at 129–31. Although the Individual followed
the SAP’s recommendation to complete two alcohol education courses, the DOE Psychologist
testified that, in her experience, those courses are necessary for a person to return to work and do
not indicate that a person understands they have a problem with their alcohol consumption. Id. at
130-31.
Furthermore, although the Individual testified that he had not consumed alcohol since February 3,
2025, the results of his PEth testing since that date suggested that he was still consuming alcohol
during the month of February 2025. Tr. at 121–22. The DOE Psychologist noted that the results of
the Individual’s March 3, 2025, PEth test were 39 ng/mL, which was higher than the results of the
October 2024 PEth test administered after his psychological evaluation, which was 27 ng/mL, and
after the Individual admitted to consuming alcohol before the evaluation. Id. at 123. Based on the
evidence of the Individual’s PEth testing, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual
had abstained from alcohol for less than four months. Id. at 122. She further testified that the
Individual’s prognosis was good because he had been engaged with AA for the past four months,
he had the support of his friends and co-workers, and he reported an intention to abstain
indefinitely. Id. at 127–28.
V. Analysis
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;
7
(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.
Regarding factor (a) above, the Individual’s positive BATs occurred one year before the hearing,
and there is no evidence to support that his excessive alcohol consumption preceding the BATs
occurred infrequently or under unusual circumstances. Further, the Individual continued to
consume alcohol after his positive BATs and as recently as February 2025, four months before the
hearing. This is an insufficient amount of time, for the passage of time alone, to mitigate the
security concerns related to his alcohol consumption. Finally, the Individual was diagnosed with
AUD, Mild, seven months before the hearing, and he has not yet satisfied the DOE Psychologist’s
treatment recommendations to resolve his AUD. Because the Individual has not yet resolved his
AUD, Mild, I cannot conclude that his problematic alcohol consumption will not recur, and it
continues to cast doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment. Accordingly,
I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under ¶ 23(a).
Regarding factor (b), after the Individual tested positive for alcohol consumption during random
BATs at work, in May 2024, he did not believe his alcohol consumption was a problem. Despite
the Occupational Psychologist advising the Individual to abstain from alcohol and despite the
Individual knowing that his alcohol consumption was being scrutinized by his employer, the
Individual continued to consume alcohol. The Individual testified that he did not acknowledge that
he had an alcohol problem until after he read the DOE Psychologist’s Report, in December 2024.
Since December 2024, the Individual has taken actions to overcome his AUD, Mild: he completed
four months of AA;; and attended weekly therapy sessions to discuss his personal goals and his
emotional triggers to drink alcohol, during the past two months.9 However, the Individual’s
positive March 3, 2025, PEth test suggests that he was consuming alcohol after he claimed to have
abstained, and he has abstained from alcohol for less than four months. Despite the DOE
Psychologist’s positive prognosis, she opined that the Individual had not yet demonstrated
rehabilitation because he had not abstained from alcohol for six months. Considering the
Individual’s relatively brief period of abstinence from alcohol, he has not yet established a pattern
of abstinence in accordance with her treatment recommendations. Accordingly, I find that the
Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under ¶ 23(b).
Regarding factor (c), after his May 2024 positive BATs, the Individual completed two online
alcohol education courses, but the Individual was required to complete those courses by his
employer, and neither course constitutes alcohol treatment. Since he received his diagnosis of
AUD, Mild, in December 2024, the Individual has begun the process of recovery; he completed
four months of AA and he has attended weekly sessions with a therapist during the past two
9 Although the Individual claimed to have obtained an AA sponsor, he provided no evidence to support his claim of
having done so. Therefore, I do not consider the Individual’s claim to have an AA sponsor as action to overcome his
alcohol problem.
8
months. Although the Individual is following the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations,
the DOE Psychologist opined more time in AA was necessary for the Individual to resolve his
AUD, Mild. The Individual also failed to demonstrate that he can abstain from alcohol for six
months, and the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual has not yet resolved his AUD, Mild.
Despite the Individual’s Psychologist’s positive opinion of the progress the Individual has made,
I accept the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that more time is needed considering the significance of
the security concerns presented by the Individual’s intoxication at work in May 2024 and the
uncertainty as to the durability of his recovery due to his short period of abstinence and treatment.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under ¶ 23(c).
Regarding factor (d), as discussed above, the Individual has completed four months of AA, but
this is short of the six months of AA recommended by the DOE Psychologist. The Individual has
also not abstained from alcohol for six months, and therefore he has not established a pattern of
abstinence in accordance with the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations. Accordingly,
I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns under ¶ 23(d).
For the reasons stated above, I cannot find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that
restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would
be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane L. Miles
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals