PSH-25-0113

*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: May 1, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0113
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 21, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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 is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires a security clearance.
In September 2024, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) learned that the Individual had been
arrested and charged with Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence of Intoxicating Liquors
or Drugs (DUI)2. As a result, the LSO requested that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-
consultant Psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Based on the information gathered by the LSO,
including the DOE Psychologist’s report (Report), the LSO informed the Individual by letter
(Notification Letter) that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding
his eligibility to possess a security clearance. In an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled
Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised
security concerns under Guidelines G and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
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 As described below, the Individual has a history of being charged with alcohol related criminal charges that have
different titles but are all essentially driving or operating a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol.
Therefore, this Decision will refer to these various charges as DUI.
- 2 -
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual presented the testimony of three witnesses and testified on
his own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. The Individual
submitted eleven exhibits, marked Exhibits A through K. The LSO submitted eighteen exhibits,
marked Exhibits 1 through 18.3
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the bases for concern regarding the Individual’s
eligibility to possess a security clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1.
Guideline G provides that “[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. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include “[a]lcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving
while under the influence . . .”, “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment . . .”, and “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(a), (c)‒(d). The SSC cited that the DOE Psychologist concluded that the
Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
Text Revision, criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), moderate, in early
remission, without evidence of rehabilitation or reformation; the Individual was arrested and
charged with DUI in September 2024; the Individual admitted to becoming intoxicated two to
three times a week for the five months leading up to his September 2024 DUI; he was also
diagnosed in March 2023 as meeting the criteria of AUD, mild; he was arrested and charged with
DUI in 2022; and he was arrested and charged with DUI in August 2012.4 Ex. 1 at 6–7. The cited
information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
Guideline J provides that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. “By its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Id. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include “[e]vidence (including, but not limited to, a credible
allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether
the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted . . . .” Id. at ¶ 31(b). The SSC cited
the DUIs cited above under Guideline G. Ex. 1 at 7. The SSC also cited that the Individual was
charged with Negligent Use of a Firearm after getting into an argument with people, retrieving his
3 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the page number of the combined .pdf of the exhibit
book.
4 The SSC also alleged that the Individual participated in an administrative review hearing in 2023, during which he
testified that he would retrain from alcohol consumption in the future, through which his security clearance was
restored. Ex. 1 at 6. While these alleged facts are relevant to the application of the Adjudicative Guidelines in this
proceeding, they do not present discrete security concerns under Guideline G.
- 3 -
pistol, and then arguing with a different group of people; the Individual was charged with Careless
Driving in connection with his 2012 DUI; in 2011 the Individual was charged with Unlawful Use
of a License and Careless Driving; in 2009, he was charged with Speeding and License Not in
Possession; and in 2008 the Individual was arrested and charged with Larceny. Id. The cited
information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J.
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 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 or her eligibility for an 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.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
The Individual admitted as true the allegations contained the SSC, outlined above. Ex. 2 at 13.
This is the second administrative review hearing that the Individual has been subject to as a result
of his concerning alcohol consumption; the Individual underwent his first administrative review
hearing in 2023 as a result of being arrested and charged with DUI in October 2022. Ex. 10
(decision in OHA Case No. PSH-23-0099). At the time of his arrest, his blood alcohol content was
over twice the legal limit. Ex. 7 at 29 (stating that his blood alcohol content was 0.19). He was
subsequently evaluated by a DOE consultant psychologist who issued a report in March 2023 that
concluded that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, in
early remission. Ex. 15 at 238. That psychologist’s opinion noted that at the time of the evaluation
the Individual had successfully abstained from alcohol for six months and had been receiving
alcohol-related counseling. Id. at 236, 238. That psychologist also provided several
recommendations to address the AUD, including continuing the alcohol-related counseling that
the Individual had initiated prior to the evaluation and remaining abstinent for another six months
- 4 -
as demonstrated by quarterly clinical testing for recent alcohol consumption in the form of a
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test5. Id. at 238–39 (noting that he did not recommended an Intensive
Outpatient Program). During the 2023 administrative review hearing, which only considered his
alcohol use as a security concern and not his criminal conduct, the Individual testified that in
counseling he learned that the underlying issue that led him to his improper alcohol use was his
inability to effectively communicate with his partner. Ex. 11 at 123. He had used alcohol to numb
his feelings and avoid his emotions, and therapy helped him realize that alcohol only made things
worse. Id. at 123–24. He also provided evidence that persuaded the Administrative Judge and the
original DOE psychologist that he had remained abstinent for one year by the hearing date. Ex. 10
at 65; Ex. 11 at 155. Accordingly, the original DOE psychologist opined during the hearing that
the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation from his AUD. Ex. 11 at 157.
However, that psychologist also noted that while the Individual intended to remain abstinent into
the future, he did not appear firm in his conviction, which the psychologist believed put him at risk
to consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 162. He consequently concluded that the Individual had a
“slightly above average” potential to sustain his sobriety. Id. at 165. The Administrative Judge in
that case concluded that the Individual successfully mitigated the concerns derived from his
concerning use of alcohol and that his security clearance should be restored. Ex. 10 at 66.
The precipitating event for the present administrative review hearing is the Individual’s 2024 DUI.
In September of that year, the Individual was arrested and charged after he consumed
approximately thirteen alcoholic beverages. Ex. 13 at 208. He was also charged with Negligent
Use of a Firearm because he was seen carrying a loaded weapon around other individuals, some
with whom he had been arguing. Id. at 210. During the evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, the
Individual described that in about May 2024, he began consuming beer again a few times a week
and then in July 2024 he began consuming liquor two to three times a week, which often resulted
in arguments with his current spouse. Ex. 13 at 207 (noting the Individual had abstained for
approximately seven months after his previous hearing before beginning to consume alcohol
again). The Individual underwent a PEth test during the evaluation, and the results were negative
for recent alcohol use. Id. at 208. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed him with AUD, Moderate, in
Early Remission. Id. at 210. The DOE Psychologist based her opinion on the Individual’s history
of DUIs, his failure to remain abstinent despite his stated intention to do so during his first
administrative hearing, and that his alcohol use led to interpersonal troubles with his family. Id.
The DOE Psychologist also opined that the Individual could demonstrate rehabilitation by
attending an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), abstaining from alcohol, and completing
monthly PEth testing for one year or reformation by completing PEth testing monthly for eighteen
months and demonstrating lifestyle changes with effective coping mechanisms. Id. at 210–11.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he last consumed alcohol on the date of his September
2024 DUI, which would represent approximately eighteen months of abstinence from alcohol.
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0113 (Tr.) at 10. The Individual had also enrolled
in and successfully completed the specific twelve-week IOP identified by the DOE Psychologist
in the Report. Id. at 11–12 (testifying that the IOP consisted of three group and one individual
5 “PEth is a metabolite of ethyl alcohol and can only be made when consumed ethyl alcohol reacts with a compound
in the Red Blood Cell (RBC) membrane.” Ex. 13 at 208. It “builds up in the RBC membrane PEth with repeated
drinking episodes . . . . [and] can still be detected in blood for about 28 days after alcohol consumption has ceased.”
Id.
- 5 -
treatment sessions each week); see also Ex. D (IOP certificate of completion). After the IOP, the
Individual enrolled in and has been attending aftercare treatment recommended by the IOP
provider. Ex. A (August 2025 letter from IOP and aftercare provider). The Individual attends
aftercare twice a month and has two months to go before completing the six-month program. Tr.
at 16–17. He testified that during the individual and group aftercare meetings he focuses on
triggers, his goals, and what he has been doing to keep himself healthy. Id. at 13–14, 16–17. He
testified that his two main goals are improving communication and patience. Id. at 18. He believes
that he has made huge improvements on his communication skills and facing his problems rather
than using alcohol. Id. He specified that his communication has improved with everyone in his
life, including his family, friends, wife, and mother. Id. at 51.
The Individual testified that he originally began consuming beer again prior to his recent DUI
because he thought he could handle it and, at the time, he did not believe he was not in control; he
has since learned that he cannot control his alcohol consumption. Tr. at 21–26, 29. He also testified
that he had previously avoided telling his family members, including his current wife, that he had
resumed alcohol consumption even though at the hearing during his first administrative review
process, he identified some of them as people he could turn to in case of relapse. Id. at 26. He
testified that he tried to hide his drinking from them and that his wife knew he was consuming
alcohol but did not ask him about it. Id. at 26–27.
The Individual testified that, after his security clearance was restored in 2023, he stopped going to
counseling. Tr. at 28. He testified that he remained abstinent for a total of about eighteen months
before he began consuming alcohol again. Id. at 50. He testified that, by April 2024, he was
drinking to intoxication two or three times per week and, at the time, believed he was controlling
his drinking. Id. at 29. He testified that he now sees that he was not in control at all. Id. at 29–30.
He believed that had he not been arrested for DUI in September 2024, he would have continued
with that pattern of alcohol consumption indefinitely. Id. at 30. The Individual testified that he did
not plan to continue treatment after he finished his six months of aftercare. Id. at 36.
The Individual testified that he “can use anything, probably, as a trigger sometimes,” including
“gloomy, rainy” weather, songs he used to hear at parties, social events, family members
consuming alcohol, camping, stress, anxiety, and depression. Tr. at 31. He testified that his
“biggest skill” for dealing with these triggers was “just loving [him]self and really loving who [he
is] sober” because he cannot avoid all his triggers. Id. at 32. He testified that, for example, he did
not want to have to miss birthday parties because alcohol would be served there. Id. He testified
that he felt a sense of pride when turning down drinks offered to him at parties and concerts and
that he loved the respect he was receiving from family and friends because of his choice not to
drink. Id. at 33–36. He did not have a plan in the event that he someday began thinking that he
could drink in moderation because returning to alcohol consumption was not an option for him.
Id. at 35–35.
The charges against the Individual related to his 2024 DUI case were dismissed through his
participation in a diversion program. Tr. at 44; Ex. B. He submitted evidence showing completion
of the court-mandated treatment, victim impact panel, and community service from his 2024 DUI
arrest. Ex. E; Ex. F; Ex. G; Tr. at 36–41. He still has to maintain an interlock device in his car until
January 2026. Tr. at 45. The Individual also submitted the results of three PEth tests, administered
- 6 -
in June, July, and August 2025, all of which returned negative results. Ex. J; Ex. K; Ex. M. He
testified that, while he was in the IOP, he took several breathalyzer tests per week and, while in
aftercare, he took a breathalyzer test twice per month. Tr. at 43. He testified that all of these tests
returned a negative result. Id.
The Individual testified that he had his firearm with him on the night of his 2024 arrest because it
had a flashlight on it and he was using it to find his way at a campsite. Tr. at 49–50. He stated that
he made the wrong decision and that alcohol had contributed to it. Id. He acknowledged that the
behavior was risky and could have resulted in harm to himself if police had felt threatened by the
firearm and shot him. Id. at 50.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that she had recommended, if the Individual
attended an IOP, one year of sobriety documented by PEth tests because that is the length of time
required, diagnostically speaking, to move into sustained remission from AUD. Tr. at 58. She
testified that if the Individual had not attended an IOP, eighteen months of sobriety documented
by PEth tests could be used, in conjunction with evidence of lifestyle changes and effective coping
skills, to show reformation. Id. at 59. She clarified that breathalyzer tests covered a period of twelve
to twenty-four hours and, therefore, were not a reliable method of ensuring continuous sobriety
over a long period of time. Id. at 60. She testified that without the scientific evidence of abstinence
that PEth tests provided, she was not sure of the Individual’s continuous sobriety and, therefore,
his rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 61–63, 73. The DOE Psychologist also noted that, while
she believes the Individual is on the right path, he appeared to be on the right path in his previous
administrative review hearing. Id. at 63–64. She credited the Individual for his insight, but testified
that it sounded very much like what she had read from the Individual’s testimony in the 2023
hearing. Id. at 64. She expressed concern that once external accountability ended, the Individual
may return to alcohol consumption again. Id. at 63–65, 67. She stated that the Individual would
have a good prognosis if she could be certain of his continuous abstinence since September 2024.
Id. at 73, 76.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(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.
I conclude that none of the above mitigating factors apply to resolve the Guideline G concerns for
the following reasons. I find that ¶ 23(a) does not apply because that mitigating condition is based
on the passage of time, infrequency of the conduct, or unusual circumstances under which the
conduct occurred such that the concerning conduct is unlikely to recur. Here, the Individual
repeated the concerning conduct within two years of having his clearance restored, making the
conduct not only recent, but also relatively frequent and, based on the Individual’s recidivism, with
the potential to recur. The strongest evidence of what the Individual will do after receiving a
positive administrative decision is what he did in just such a scenario. The Individual has not
provided evidence of rehabilitation sufficient to overcome the fact that he relapsed and engaged in
further alcohol-related illegal conduct after attending treatment and going through administrative
review.
Second, I find that ¶ 23(b) does not apply to resolve the security concerns. While he has shown
evidence of steps taken to treat his AUD, he did not provide sufficient evidence of sobriety to
demonstrate a pattern of abstinence. The minimal period of time measured by the breathalyzer
tests the Individual claimed to have undergone makes them insufficient to corroborate the
abstinence from alcohol that the Individual claimed to have established. As the Individual did not
comply with the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation for monthly PEth testing, and has not
brought forth alternative evidence to substantiate his claimed abstinence from alcohol, I find that
he has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.
Lastly, I find that ¶ 23(c) and ¶ 23(d) do not apply for the following reasons. While the Individual
is currently participating aftercare, which is a treatment program, he previously participated in
alcohol-related counseling and, despite his stated intent to remain abstinent after a positive
administrative decision, began consuming alcohol again shortly thereafter. This relapse precludes
application of ¶ 23(c). The Individual also has not completed aftercare as contemplated by ¶ 23(d).
Moreover, as stated previously, he has not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate a pattern
of abstinence.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the Guideline G security
concerns.
B. Guideline J Considerations
- 8 -
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on criminal conduct include the following:
(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. Mitigating conditions (b) and (c) are not relevant in this case
because the Individual admits to his offenses and has not claimed that he was coerced.
I find that ¶ 32(a) does not apply for the same reason that ¶ 23(a) does not apply: That mitigating
condition is based on the passage of time, infrequency of the conduct, or unusual circumstances
under which the conduct occurred such that the concerning conduct is unlikely to recur and the
Individual reoffended within just two years. The Individual’s criminal conduct continues to cast
doubt on his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness because his decision-making while
intoxicated has led to criminal conduct multiple times and he has not demonstrated that he can
remain abstinent from alcohol long-term.
I find that ¶ 32(d) also does not apply because in this instance part of rehabilitation is rehabilitation
from the alcohol use that led to the Individual’s criminal conduct. Without evidence of continuous
sobriety, the question of his alcohol consumption remains unresolved and I cannot find that he will
not reoffend again if I cannot find that he is unlikely to be in the same position just a few years
from now. Moreover, the Individual has not completed his court required period of required
interlock use in his car, indicating that he has not completely resolved the legal requirements of
his case. The Individual also brought forward no evidence of having paid restitution or of job
training or higher education. While the Individual has demonstrated compliance with the diversion
program, the positive evidence of rehabilitation from these actions is insufficient to demonstrate
rehabilitation considering the relatively short period of time since the Individual’s 2024 DUI, the
Individual’s history of alcohol-related offenses, and the doubt as to the Individual’s resolution of
his maladaptive alcohol use.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the Guideline J security
concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
- 9 -
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G and Guideline J of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. After considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I conclude that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the Guideline G and J security concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that
the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals