PSH-25-0102

*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: April 9, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0102
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: September 25, 2025
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXX (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
As part of the access authorization application process, the Individual completed and submitted a
Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in July 2020. Exhibit (Ex.) 12.2 She
subsequently received her access authorization and completed another QNSP in September 2023
for the purpose of a reinvestigation. Ex. 11. The Individual disclosed a number of criminal charges
in the aforementioned QNSPs. She provided that in September 1997, she was charged with Driving
While Intoxicated (DWI), for which she was convicted. Ex. 11 at 108–09. The Individual was
placed on probation as a result. Id. at 109. The Individual was also charged with Aggravated
Driving While Intoxicated (ADWI) in March 2000, which was dismissed. Id.
The Individual underwent an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI) following the submission of the
2020 QNSP in August 2020. Ex. 12 at 220. The Individual told the investigator who conducted
the ESI that she was arrested and charged with Misdemeanor DWI in 2005 and was ultimately
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
found guilty of the charge. Id. at 224. The Individual was subsequently placed on probation, had
an Interlock device placed in her car, and had her license revoked for a period of time. Id.
The Individual also told the investigator that she was placed on probation following a DWI charge
in July 2014, which resulted in the installation of an Interlock device in her car. Id. at 223. She
was also ordered to attend counseling for her alcohol use, and accordingly, she saw a therapist for
one-on-one meetings for approximately three months in 2015. Id. She told the investigator that she
“successfully completed the program.” Id.
The Individual disclosed in her 2023 QNSP that in May 2016, she “was charged for not leaving”
a casino “when asked [to] by tribal police.” Ex. 11 at 110; Ex. 12 at 201. She indicated that she
“got into an argument” after checking into a suite. Ex. 12 at 201. She was, as a result, asked to
leave, but refused to until such time as she received reimbursement for the cost of the suite. Id.
She was provided with “several warning[s,]” but as she was intoxicated, she failed to heed the
warnings to leave, resulting in her arrest. Id. She was charged with Criminal Trespass. Ex. 11 at
110.
The investigator confronted the Individual with a May 2016 Battery charge during the ESI. Ex. 12
at 225. She told the investigator that she had been out drinking on a Monday morning with a friend,
consumed six to eight drinks, and then returned to the office where she worked, whereupon the
Individual and her friend engaged in an argument. Id. The Individual told her friend to leave, and
her friend called law enforcement, alleging that the Individual had slapped her. Id. The Individual
denied the alleged slap, and the matter was ultimately dismissed. Id.; Ex. 9 at 44.
She also indicated in her QNSPs that in February 2017, she had been charged with Misdemeanor
Battery Against a Household member after she “had been drinking and had a fight” with her
roommate at the time. Ex. 11 at 106, 115.
In early August 2024, the Individual reported to DOE that in mid-July 2024 she had been issued a
Criminal Complaint and Summons for Battery. Ex. 6 at 26–27. As a result, the Local Security
Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which she signed
and submitted in September 2024. Ex. 8. The Individual completed a second LOI later the same
month in which she answered questions pertaining to her alcohol consumption. Ex. 7.
The LSO subsequently asked the Individual to see a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE
Psychologist) for a psychological evaluation in October 2024, for which the Individual also
submitted to a phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test.3 Ex. 9. The DOE Psychologist issued a report (the
Report) of his findings later in the same month. Id. In the Report, the DOE Psychologist concluded
that pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition, Text
Revision, the Individual suffers from Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 58.
3 “PEth is not a normal body metabolite” and only “accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell membrane.”
Ex. 9 at 60. PEth tests “detect[] any significant alcohol use over the past three to four weeks.” Id. at 47.
3
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 Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and J (Criminal
Conduct) 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 supervisor, her counselor from an
intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP), her friend, her Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
Sponsor, and her stepfather. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0102 (Tr.). The
Individual also submitted thirteen exhibits, marked Exhibits A through M. The DOE Counsel
submitted twelve exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 12 and presented the testimony of the
DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
Guideline G
Under Guideline G, “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence[,]” and “diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d).
Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that:
1. In October 2024, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe,
without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.4 Ex. 1 at 5.
2. In July 2024, the Individual was charged with Battery “after she was accused of hitting her
son’s girlfriend during an altercation[.]” Id. She consumed “four to five, [twelve-ounce]”
alcoholic seltzer drinks prior to the physical altercation. Id.
4 In support of this allegation, the LSO also alleged that the Individual admitted to the DOE Psychologist that she “has
an alcohol problem.” Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO further alleged that the Individual’s PEth test result, which was positive at
428 ng/mL, was indicative of alcohol consumption “in the range of [four] to [twelve] drinks, most days of the week[.]”
Id. According to the DOE Psychologist, this level of alcohol consumption would suggest “chronic heavy drinking and
episodic consumption well into the binge range.” Id. I find that the alleged facts, while supporting the DOE
Psychologist’s diagnosis, are insufficient to establish a security concern based on habitual or binge consumption to
the point of impaired judgment.
4
3. In February 2017, the Individual was accused of striking her roommate while in a state of
intoxication. Id.
4. In May 2016, the Individual was charged with Battery “after she was accused of hitting her
friend during an altercation.” Id. The Individual had consumed approximately “six to eight
alcoholic drinks prior to the incident.” Id.
5. In May 2016, the Individual, in an intoxicated state, “got into an altercation with casino
staff and refused to leave the casino[,]” resulting in an arrest and charge of Criminal
Trespass. Id.
6. In July 2014, the Individual was arrested and charged with Failure to Maintain Traffic Lane
and ADWI .16 or more. Id. at 6.
7. In April 2005, the Individual was arrested and charged with Speeding and Driving Under
the Influence First Offence/DWI after consuming alcohol. Id.
8. In March 2000, the Individual was arrested and charged with ADWI, after she consumed
alcohol. Id.
9. In September 1997, the Individual was arrested and charged with DWI after consuming
alcohol. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
Guideline J
Guideline J states that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness” and that, “[b]y its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30.
Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline J include “[e]vidence . . . of criminal
conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted[.]”
Id. at ¶ 31(b). Under Guideline J, the LSO realleged paragraphs two through six above. Ex. 1 at 6.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline J is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
5
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
Following her 2005 DWI, the Individual participated in an IOP in 2007 and remained abstinent
from alcohol until 2011. Ex. 9 at 44; Tr. at 82, 93–95. The Individual testified that she entered the
IOP because she wanted to get her alcohol consumption “under control.”5 Tr. at 93. The IOP “met
three nights a week, four hours a night, for eight weeks.” Ex. 9 at 44. The Individual also began
attending AA meetings during this time and continued to attend those meetings “intermittently”
until 2017. Id. The Individual began consuming alcohol again to cope with the trauma of a tragic
accident in 2011. Id. She was drinking alcohol to excess at this time, which ultimately resulted in
the 2014 ADWI charge. Id. She was ordered to complete probation, which included “random
alcohol testing” and counseling. Id. She received counseling for approximately two months “and
successfully completed the program.” Id. Following treatment, the Individual began to experience
personal stressors, which caused her to consume “approximately [ten] drinks most days and engage
in this pattern of consumption for several months.” Id. She was consuming alcohol to intoxication
on a daily basis between the years 2016 and 2017. Id.
The Individual decided to stop consuming alcohol in December 2018, and she remained abstinent
from alcohol from December 2018 to approximately June 2024, with “a short relapse in December
2023” when she “drank over the holidays.” Ex. 7 at 31; Ex. 9 at 25. The Individual indicated that
she “had a setback with [her] drinking after [her] son moved back in with [her.]” Ex. 8 at 38. She
estimated the setback began in June 2024, when her son’s girlfriend began “create[ing] chaos” in
her home. Ex. 7 at 30. Regarding the precipitating July 2024 incident, the Individual indicated that
on the day of the incident, her son, who lived with her, brought his girlfriend to her home
“uninvited.”6 Ex. 6 at 27; Ex. 8 at 36. They approached the Individual while she was sitting alone
on her back porch, and her son’s girlfriend began discussing matters that the Individual felt were
inappropriate. Ex. 8 at 36. At some point, there was a verbal exchange and the Individual “became
upset” and asked her son’s girlfriend to leave. Id.; Ex. 6 at 27; Tr. at 90. The Individual “escorted”
her son and his girlfriend out of her home, and “[a]bout twenty minutes later[,] police” responded
5 The Individual was under the assumption that the IOP was going to “fix” her. Tr. at 93–94. She thought that she
could “manage” or “control” her drinking. Id. at 94. When she completed the IOP, she was under the believe that she
“[was not] going to have a problem with [alcohol] anymore.” Id. at 95.
6 The Individual explained in the first September LOI and during the hearing that her son’s girlfriend was not permitted
to visit her home, a condition to which her son agreed. Ex. 8 at 36; Tr. at 87, 89.
6
to her home.7 Ex. 6 at 27; Tr. at 90. She was questioned by police as to what transpired, and after
she answered their questions, the police departed from her home. Ex. 6 at 27; Tr. at 90–91. She
“was not issued any citation and was not arrested[,]” but did find a Criminal Summons in her
mailbox in late July 2024, indicating that she was to “appear in court” at the end of August 2024.8
Ex. 6 at 27; Tr. at 91. The Individual admitted that she had consumed “about four or five” twelve-
ounce alcoholic seltzers over the span of three hours on the day of the incident. Ex. 8 at 36.
Although she admitted to consuming alcohol on the day of the incident, she stated in her second
LOI that “in [her] opinion[,]” alcohol was not a contributing factor to the incident. Ex. 7 at 30.
The Individual told the DOE Psychologist during the October 8, 2024, psychological evaluation
that she had last consumed alcohol in early October 2024, and that she had “consumed alcohol
every night the last week of September[.]” Ex. 9 at 45.
As indicated above, the Individual submitted to a PEth test in conjunction with the psychological
evaluation, the result of which was 428 ng/mL. Ex. 9 at 47. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the
Individual with AUD, Severe, with no adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at
48. In order to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the DOE Psychologist
indicated that the Individual should remain abstinent from alcohol for at least one year, attend AA
or a similar-type group meetings twice a week, and engage a sponsor. Id. at 48. The DOE
Psychologist also recommended that the Individual enroll in and attend a residential treatment
program to last twenty-eight days, or an IOP that consisted of “nine hours of treatment per week”
for eight to twelve weeks. Id. Upon the completion of treatment, the DOE Psychologist further
recommended that the Individual should also participate in aftercare that has either a group or one-
on-one treatment component with a “certified alcohol counselor.” Id. “[T]he total time in all
treatments combined [should] equal[] not less than one year.” Id. Finally, the Individual should
submit to a PEth test once per month. Id.
As stated above, the Individual stopped consuming alcohol in late October 2024, and in the same
month, she entered into an agreement for recovery/abstinence with her employer’s Employee
Assistance Program (EAP).9 Ex. C; Tr. at 96. Per the agreement, the Individual is obligated to
submit to a PEth test every four to five weeks, “for a period of twelve months.” Ex. C. The
Individual submitted nine PEth tests from December 2024 to August 2025, all of which were
negative. Ex. A; Ex. L. She is also subject to “random drug and breath alcohol tests and monthly
EAP monitoring visits.” Ex. C. From early October 2024 to early July 2025, the Individual
participated in twelve EAP monitoring visits, during which she saw a licensed therapist. Id.; Tr. at
99.
7 The Individual stated that she had “gestured for her [son’s girlfriend] to go through the house and out the garage
door.” Ex. 8 at 36. The Individual was, accordingly, “following [her son’s girlfriend] very closely to encourage her to
leave[,] taking care not to handle her.” Id. The Individual admitted in the LOI that she had exhibited poor judgment
on the day of the incident, but also insisted that her son’s girlfriend wanted the Individual “to lose [her] job[.]” Id.
8 The Individual denied striking her son’s girlfriend. Tr. at 83. The assistant district attorney entered a nolle prosequi
in the case. Ex. M; Tr. at 91–92.
9 EAP monitoring will last a total of two years. Tr. at 99.
7
The Individual began an IOP in early 2025 and completed the program in April 2025. Tr. at 50;
Ex. B. The IOP consisted of weekly testing, three hour-long group meetings per week, and one
hour-long individual counseling session every week. Tr. at 106; Ex. I. Following the completion
of the IOP, the Individual began attending aftercare. Tr. at 57–58. The Individual also began
attending AA meetings when she began the IOP, and by early August 2025, the Individual had
attended 117 meetings. Tr. at 106; Ex. J. The Individual testified that she does not experience any
cravings for alcohol, and she does not keep alcohol in her home. Tr. at 118. She acknowledged
that her alcohol consumption was maladaptive, and she expressed her belief that sobriety had
proven to be a benefit to her. Id. at 118–19.
The Individual’s stepfather, who talks to the Individual “[a]t least every other day[,]” described
the Individual’s judgment as “very good” and knows her to be a reliable and trustworthy person.
Id. at 15–16. He first became concerned about her drinking when she was first charged with a DWI
and confirmed that he is supportive of her sobriety. Id. at 17. He also confirmed that the Individual
no longer keeps alcohol in her home, and that, to his knowledge, she last consumed alcohol in
October 2024. Id. at 17–18. While they have been in social situations together where alcohol was
being consumed, he did not see the Individual consume alcohol on those occasions. Id. at 18. The
Individual also told him that she has no intention of consuming alcohol ever again. Id. While the
Individual has sought and completed treatment before, he feels that her commitment to sobriety is
“different” this time, as she is committed to sobriety “no matter what the outcome [of this
proceeding] is.” Id. at 18–21.
The Individual’s friend of thirty-five years characterized the Individual as her best friend and
communicates with the Individual on a daily basis. Id. at 27. She confirmed that she did not see
alcohol in the Individual’s home when she visited in January 2025, and that the Individual did not
drink on a recent trip they took together in July 2025. Id. at 28–29. She did not feel that the
Individual had any difficulty staying sober when other people on the trip were drinking around
her. Id. at 29. She also confirmed that the Individual had told her that she does not intend to drink
alcohol again. Id. at 30. She testified that although the Individual has had previous periods of
abstinence, she never expressed a desire not to drink again prior to her current period of abstinence.
Id. She feels that now, the Individual understands that her “relationships and mental health are
better when [she is] sober.” Id. She has the impression that the group meetings in which the
Individual participates are “helping her” and that the Individual “wants to be there.” Id. at 32–33.
She feels that the Individual now sees herself as a “sober person.” Id. at 33–34.
The Individual’s AA sponsor of two months testified that she has weekly contact with the
Individual. Id. at 40–41. Together, they attend an in-person AA meeting intended for women
only.10 Id. at 42. The purpose of the women-only AA meeting is to create a sober community and
discuss the Twelve Steps. Id.; Ex. E. She confirmed that the Individual identifies herself as an
alcoholic and is “engaged” during AA meetings. Tr. at 42. The Individual is also “willing and
helpful with the other women and others in the community.” Id. at 43. She indicated that the
Individual is committed to the Twelve Steps of the AA program and remaining engaged in the AA
program. Id. The AA sponsor perceives the Individual as having been honest about her past alcohol
10 The women-only meetings are an hour long and occur weekly. Tr. at 45. After each meeting, the Individual and her
sponsor hold an hour-long individual meeting to work on the Twelve Steps together. Id.
8
consumption and supportive of others at meetings. Id. The Individual’s dedication to AA and
sobriety is why she agreed to be the Individual’s sponsor. Id. The Individual has told her that she
intends to remain sober, and she believes that the Individual “is doing all the right things to
maintain sobriety.” Id. at 44.
The Individual’s IOP counselor testified that he began seeing the Individual in January 2025, and
that they continue to see each other. Id. at 50. Initially, they saw each other about “ten hours a
week[,]” which included group and individual counseling. Id. at 51. He described the Individual’s
participation in group as “thoughtful” and indicated that she “participated openly[.]” Id. The
Individual also participated in “community support meetings[,]” and is “supportive and
encouraging to other people in the program.” Id. at 51–52. The IOP counselor testified that the
program teaches participants about engaging with feelings, identifying triggers, coping skills,
“reflective listening,” and “dealing with boredom.” Id. at 52–53. The Individual is learning about
“the pitfalls of isolation” and “emotional buildup[,]” she works with her sponsor, and she remains
active in the sober community. Id. at 56. The IOP counselor confirmed that the Individual was
compliant with his treatment recommendations, that she successfully completed the program, and
that she is in aftercare.11 Id. at 57–58. He also indicated that the Individual had been meeting with
him once every month for individual counseling since completing the IOP. Id. at 60.
The Individual’s supervisor testified that based on what he has witnessed, alcohol consumption
has not “affected [the Individual’s] work performance[.]” Id.12 at 65–67. He never suspected that
the Individual had any issues with alcohol, and described her as “very reliable,” trustworthy, and
possessing “excellent” judgment. Id. at 67–68.
The DOE Psychologist testified that at the time of the hearing, the Individual’s AUD was in early
remission. Id. at 130. He was sufficiently satisfied that the Individual had been sober since late
October 2024. Id. at 131. He further testified that the Individual had complied with his
recommendations. Id. at 132. He determined that although the Individual had shown adequate
evidence of reformation, as she has complied with his recommendations, he could not determine
that she had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation, as not enough time had passed since her
date of sobriety.13 Id. at 133–34. The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual’s prognosis
is good, as she “has a good chance for continued sobriety” and “has shown reformation[.]” Id. at
134. He did, however, indicate that the Individual’s past history of treatment and relapse makes it
even more important for the Individual to reach one full year of sobriety. Id. Finally, the DOE
Psychologist was heartened by the Individual’s understanding that her treatment requires “a
11 The aftercare program is available for “as long as a person wants to remain in it.” Tr. at 59. Group aftercare meetings
are weekly and last for an hour and a half. Id. The Individual testified that she wants to attend aftercare and confirmed
that she continues to attend aftercare. Id. at 124.
12 Not only has the Individual been active in the recovery community, but she has also participated in a memorial
march, she has obtained further job-related credentials, she is attending classes to obtain a degree, and she received a
Spot Award and “Kudos” in connection with her work performance. Ex. H; Ex. F; Ex. G.
13 Abstinence from the intoxicating substance for a requisite amount of time, as opposed to rehabilitation through
treatment, typically results in the determination that the individual has shown adequate evidence of reformation. See,
e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. TSO-0206, 2006 EOHA LEXIS 96 at *17 (2006).
9
different level of commitment[,]” and indicated that she is going into treatment “with a different
mindset.” Id. at 134–35.
V. Analysis
Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
While the Individual does have a history of treatment and relapse, as well as a history of concerning
alcohol-related incidents, I am satisfied that she has mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to
mitigating factor (b). It is clear to me that the Individual was previously under some
misunderstanding of what treatment can offer her. For instance, she testified that when she first
entered an IOP years ago, she believed that the IOP was going to “fix” her and that alcohol would
not be an issue for her again. Now, as evidenced by her actions, I am persuaded that she
understands that an IOP is not a “fix.” Rather, after acknowledging her alcohol use was
maladaptive, she enveloped herself in the recovery community and has made treatment part of her
lifestyle. More than one witness indicated that she has voiced her desire to remain abstinent from
alcohol, evidencing the change in her mindset. The Individual has been abstinent from alcohol for
approximately ten months, enrolled in and completed an IOP, engaged her employer’s EAP to
enter an agreement that requires two years of monitoring, submits to regular PEth tests to evidence
her ongoing sobriety, and continues to attend aftercare. Not only did the Individual voice her
ongoing desire to attend aftercare, she also continues to attend AA meetings, she has engaged a
sponsor, and she works the Twelve Steps. Through all of her involvement in the recovery
community, it appears that she has a robust support system. Finally, I am heartened by the fact that
the DOE Psychologist found adequate evidence of reformation and that she had a good prognosis.
10
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
Guideline J
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that can 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.
The criminal acts alleged in the SSC are inextricably intertwined with the Individual’s prior
problematic alcohol consumption.14 As the Individual has shown adequate evidence of reformation
with regard to her alcohol consumption, I believe she has mitigated the stated Guideline J concerns
pursuant to mitigating factor (d). Not only has the Individual addressed her AUD diagnosis and
maladaptive alcohol consumption with focused and ongoing treatment, but she has also been active
in the recovery community and her larger local community. Under 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c), I am
required to consider, among other things, the “presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other
pertinent behavioral changes,” “the likelihood of continuation or recurrence,” and “other relevant
and material factors.” Considering that I have found that the Individual has resolved her alcohol-
related issues under Guideline G, I find that it is unlikely that her alcohol-related criminal conduct
will recur in the future. Additionally, I have considered the fact that the Individual is in the process
of obtaining a higher degree, and she has received a spot award and “Kudos” to evidence her good
work performance, both of which are indicators of rehabilitation under the fourth mitigating
condition. For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline J.
14 Although the Individual indicated in her second LOI that she does not believe that alcohol was a contributing factor
in the 2024 incident involving her son’s girlfriend, the fact remains that the Individual consumed between four to five
alcoholic seltzers over three hours on the day of the incident. Accordingly, alcohol was a factor in the incident.
11
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and J 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 the Guidelines G and J 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