PSH-25-0115

*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 5, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0115
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 27. 2026
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 For
the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires that he hold a
security clearance. Derogatory information was discovered regarding his alcohol consumption.
The Local Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a
Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to a hearing before an
Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his 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 the Administrative Judge
in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the
Individual presented the testimony of three witnesses, in addition to his own. The LSO presented
the testimony of the DOE psychologist who had evaluated the Individual. See Transcript of
Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0115 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted ten
exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”).2 The Individual submitted
twelve exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through L.
1 Under the regulations, “‘[a]ccess authorization’ means 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). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2 Citations to DOE Exhibits will use the Bates stamp page number.
2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guideline G of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline G states that 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
include:
(a) Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the
influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents
of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether
the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an
intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the welfare
and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol
use disorder;
(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) 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;
(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations,
after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation,
treatment, or abstinence.
Id. at ¶ 22.
The LSO alleges that:
• In 1997, the Individual was charged with Minor in Consumption;
3
• In June 2001, the Individual was charged with Alcohol Beverage—Unlawful Sale
Minor/Intoxicated Person;
• In November 2001, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) after failing a sobriety test;
• Around 2004,3 the Individual was arrested and charged with DUI after he crashed his car
on the way home from a party at which he had been consuming alcohol;
• In August 2004, the Individual was charged with Violate Any Rules and Regulation for
Use of Park for an alcohol-related incident;
• In May 2005, the Individual was charged with Disturbing the Peace for an alcohol-related
incident;
• In October 2005, the Individual was charged with Excretion of Human Waste for an
incident that involved alcohol;
• On another day in October 2005, the Individual was charged with Unlawful to Possess
Alcohol in a [city name] Park;
• In March 2006, the Individual was charged with Resisting or Obstructing Officers for an
alcohol-related incident;
• In November 2015, the Individual was arrested and charged with DUI and Open Container
in Vehicle after failing a sobriety test;
• In May 2019, the Individual was arrested and charged with Operating Under the Influence
of Alcohol or Drugs and Refusal to Submit to Chemical Test after refusing to blow into a
breathalyzer during the traffic stop;
• From May 2020 to the time he completed his response to the LSO’s Letter of Interrogatory
(LOI) in November 2024, the Individual consumed alcohol—two to six beers per sitting—
two to three times per week; consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication on select
weekends; and was intoxicated just three days prior to reporting the above;
• In February 2025, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE Contractor Psychologist (the
Psychologist) and submitted to Phosphatidyl Ethanol (PEth)4 testing. The test returned a
result positive for alcohol consumption in the preceding thirty days, and the Psychologist
opined that the Individual’s presentation warranted a diagnosis of Unspecified Alcohol-
3 The Individual initially reported this incident having occurred in November 2002, but later corrected himself, stating
that he was charged in 2004. Ex. 6 at 27.
4 A PEth test measures a blood sample for levels of an alcohol byproduct. Direct Ethanol Biomarker Testing: PETH,
Mayo Clinic Laboratories, https://news.mayocliniclabs.com/2022/09/13/direct-ethanol-biomarker-testing-peth-test-
in-focus/ (last visited February 27, 2026). The test can detect alcohol consumption in the two to four weeks preceding
the test. Id.
4
Related Disorder under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth
Ed., Text Revision and that the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed. He also opined
that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.
Ex. 1 at 1–2.
The LSO alleges that Individual has a long history of legal trouble that appears to be consistently
related to alcohol consumption. The LSO also alleges that the Psychologist opined that the
Individual binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and warrants a diagnosis of
Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns under Guideline
G are justified. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c)‒(d).
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 entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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.
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
In November 2024, in connection with his application for a security clearance, the Individual
provided responses to a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in which he admitted to all the criminal
conduct listed in the Notification Letter that occurred from 1997 to 2019. Ex. 6 at 25–30. He wrote
5
that his current alcohol consumption was, on average, two or three times per week (socially) and
two to six beers per time, “depending on the day and situation.” Id. at 33. He wrote that he
sometimes consumed shots of liquor and that “the kind and amount vary.” Id. He wrote that this
had been his pattern of alcohol consumption since May 20, 2020. Id. at 34. He further wrote that
he had last consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication three days prior, when he consumed “a
few beers and a couple of shots while out” and “a couple more beers and a shot of rum for a night
cap” when he returned home. Id. In 2002, 2003, and 2020, the Individual attended DUI classes at
the order of a court or judge. Id. at 36. On a separate occasion in 2002, the Individual attended
some Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings at the recommendation of his attorney as part of DUI
defense. Id.; Ex. 7 at 47. In December 2024, the Individual self-referred to his employer’s
Employee Assistance Program (EAP) for individual counseling and a guided alcohol education
and support group. Ex. 7 at 47. As part of the EAP program, he attended individual counseling
sessions and a weekly group focused on supporting alcohol abstinence. Id.; Ex. E at 6–8.
The Individual was referred to the Psychologist for an evaluation, which occurred in February
2025. Ex. 7 at 43. For the evaluation, the Psychologist administered several psychological
inventories, interviewed the Individual, reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file, and
spoke with the Individual’s EAP counselors. Id. at 43–44, 47, 49–50. The Individual also submitted
to a PEth test which was positive at 60 ng/mL. Id. at 48. The Psychiatrist interpreted this result as
evidence of binge consumption of alcohol and wrote that the Individual consumed alcohol “at least
at the medium risk level.” Id. at 49. The Psychologist opined that the Individual warranted
diagnosis with Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder, which applies to individuals who exhibit
“symptoms characteristic of an alcohol-related disorder that cause clinically significant distress or
impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning predominate but do not
meet the full criteria for any specific alcohol-related disorder or any of the disorders in the
substance-related and addictive disorders diagnostic class.” Id. at 50. See also Unspecified
Alcohol-Related Disorder, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders, Fifth Ed., Text
Revision 568 (2022). The Psychologist wrote, as support for his diagnosis, that the Individual
denied problems with alcohol, persisted in consuming alcohol despite multiple DUI charges, drank
more than intended, and binge drank. Ex. 7 at 50. He characterized the Individual as a binge drinker
because he had “episodic higher than usual consumption” and cited to three occasions that the
Individual had reported he had consumed more than five standard drinks. Id.
The Psychologist opined that the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed. Ex. 7 at 50. He
wrote that the Individual had only participated in supportive programs, not alcohol treatment, and
that he had shown “little positive response to the DUI classes or to AA given his continued binge
drinking and denial of problematic alcohol use.” Id. at 50–51. He recommended, to show evidence
of rehabilitation, that the Individual:
• Enroll in and complete an intensive outpatient program (IOP) consisting of either:
o At least nine hours of individual and group therapeutic and educational meetings
weekly for at least twelve to sixteen weeks; or
o A four- to six- week program with individual and group therapy components
meeting four evenings per week;
6
• Consistently engage in weekly aftercare support for six months after IOP completion;
• Submit monthly negative PEth test results; and
• Maintain enrollment in the EAP programs and follow the recommendations of his EAP
counselors.
Id. at 51. He recommended, to show evidence of reformation, that the Individual:
• Abstain from alcohol for twelve months; and
• Document his abstinence with monthly negative PEth test results.
Id.
The Individual completed the EAP alcohol awareness course in March 2025. Ex. D at 2. He
completed the EAP abstinence support course in April 2025 but continued attending group sessions
through January 2026. Id. at 1; Ex. E at 6–8. In April 2025, the Individual began attending an IOP,
completing the program in July 2025.5 Ex. A. About two weeks later, the Individual began
attending AA weekly. Ex. B; see also Tr. at 47 (Individual testifying that he attended AA at least
weekly). He submitted to monthly PEth tests from March 2025 through January 2026, each of
which returned a negative result. Ex. F. The time period covered by those tests began in early
February 2025. See supra n. 3.
Prior to the hearing, the Individual submitted into evidence the following exhibits not previously
cited:
• A letter from the Individual’s AA sponsor stating that the Individual attended AA meetings
regularly and appeared committed to making changes in his life. Ex. C.
• Affidavits, six in total, from family members, friends, and colleagues attesting to the
Individual’s reliability, responsibility, helpfulness, and trustworthiness. Exs. G–L. All of
the affidavits stated that, at the time of writing in October 2025, the Individual had not
consumed alcohol in at least eight months. Id. One affidavit from a friend described the
Individual’s AA participation and stated that he “completed numerous hours of
coursework, regularly attends AA meetings, and currently works with a sponsor.” Ex. J.
At the hearing, the Individual’s EAP group facilitator testified that the Individual had developed a
“recovery-oriented lifestyle” over the preceding year. Tr. at 12. She testified that he had grown
and was also supportive of others in recovery. Id. She testified that she often heard “change talk”
from the Individual and that the Individual had been very open in the groups. Id. at 13. The group
facilitator testified that the Individual had learned tools to maintain his recovery and described him
as a positive influence on her support groups. Id. at 14.
5 The IOP’s weekly programming consisted of one individual therapy session and nine to fifteen hours of group
therapy. Ex. A.
7
The Individual’s EAP counselor testified that she had seen the Individual for individual therapy
about every six weeks from December 2024 through November 2025. Tr. at 20, 27. The length
between the sessions was due to the limitation on how many EAP sessions were provided per year.
Id. at 21. The counselor also testified that the Individual was doing well, so the long time between
the sessions was not problematic. Id. The counselor testified that the Individual initially appeared
to think of alcohol as a social activity, but eventually he started to realize how it impacted his
health. Id. at 23. Over the course of his therapy sessions, she had observed the Individual move
from the pre-contemplation stage to contemplation to preparation action to, finally, action of
change. Id. at 29. She testified that she had seen him maintain the changes as well. Id. She further
testified that a friend of the Individual’s had died from alcohol-related causes recently and that this
had made an impact on the Individual. Id. at 24. She described the Individual as engaged in his
treatment. Id. She testified that the Individual had taken up new hobbies and was able to live a
fulfilling social life without alcohol. Id. at 25. The counselor testified that the Individual’s family
was supportive of his recovery. Id. at 26. She testified that the Individual told her he intended to
abstain indefinitely. Id. at 30.
The Individual’s father testified that he and the Individual had regular contact and saw each other
often. Tr. at 34. He testified that he had not seen the Individual consume alcohol since November
2024. Id. at 36. The Individual had told him he intended to abstain permanently. Id. at 40.
The Individual testified that he understood that his own actions, and his alcohol use in particular,
had brought him to this situation. Tr. at 43. Through the EAP programming and his IOP, he was
able to look at the underlying cause of his maladaptive relationship with alcohol. Id. at 44. He
learned that his previous practice of calculating his BAC to know whether he could legally drive
was not enough to ensure a safe relationship with alcohol. Id. Previously, when he had been in
legal trouble because of alcohol, he would engage in court ordered education classes just to “get
through it,” but he now realized that he could not safely consume alcohol anymore. Id. at 47. The
Individual testified, “I really do need to stay sober and not return to that lifestyle.” Id. He realized
he needed a program for support to stay sober. Id. at 48. He met often with his AA sponsor and
was working the 12 Steps. Id. at 49. The Individual testified that he was working on the third step,
which involved turning his life over to a higher power. Id. at 48. The Individual also continued to
attend the EAP abstinence support class weekly and had a strong support system of family and
friends on whom he could lean. Id. at 49, 55. The Individual testified that he used AA as an
aftercare program because his IOP had not offered one. Id. at 56.
The Individual last consumed alcohol on January 15, 2025, after learning that continued
consumption of alcohol could jeopardize his ability to obtain a security clearance. Tr. at 50, 51,
58. He testified that he realized alcohol was a problem in his life when he had to tell the
Psychologist about his alcohol history. Id. at 51. He testified that he felt happier and had seen
health improvements since starting to abstain from alcohol. Id. at 51, 54. Instead of drinking, the
Individual played basketball, attended yoga classes, skied with his father, and volunteered with his
motorcycle club. Id. at 51–52. He testified that he had been in situations where alcohol was served
since beginning to abstain and that he would drink non-alcoholic beverages. Id. at 52. He testified
that he was able to think more clearly in social situations, and his relationships had improved. Id.
at 52–53. The Individual testified, “the risk is always going to [] be there, not only for dealing with
8
law enforcement, but also the health and relationship discrepancies are not going to be able to be
mitigated unless I abstain completely and continue to abstain.” Id. at 47.
The Individual testified that he had never tried to give up drinking in the past, though he would, at
times, take breaks from alcohol for health reasons. Tr. at 53. He testified that he did not resume
drinking after those breaks for any particular reason, but rather because he did not have a reason
not to resume drinking. Id. The Individual now preferred a sober lifestyle. Id. at 54. The
Individual’s romantic partner used to drink in front of him, but he asked her not to, and she
respected his wishes. Id. at 57. She started abstaining from alcohol about a month before the
hearing. Id.
The Psychologist opined that as of the date of the hearing the Individual was rehabilitated. Tr. at
64. He based his opinion on the Individual’s completion of the IOP, AA attendance, PEth testing,
and EAP group attendance. Id. at 63. He also cited the Individual’s experience of positive changes
across several spectra in his life. Id. at 64– 65. He opined that the Individual showed insight into
his alcohol use and recovery. Id. at 64. The Psychologist testified that the Individual’s participation
in AA and the EAP abstinence support course showed commitment to aftercare. Id. at 63. He gave
the Individual a very good prognosis. Id. at 64.
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
granting the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
Conditions that may mitigate Guideline G concerns 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;
9
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; or
(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. Mitigating conditions (b) and (d) apply.
Regarding mitigating condition (b), the Individual clearly identified the real harm to himself and
others his alcohol consumption had caused and stated that he wanted to prevent further harm by
continuing to abstain from alcohol. He approached recovery from multiple angles, attending an
IOP, EAP classes, AA, and therapy. His efforts appear to have paid off: he has about one year of
sobriety, documented through PEth testing, and multiple witnesses testified to the positive changes
they have seen in the Individual since he stopped consuming alcohol. I find credible his testimony
that he intends to abstain indefinitely. The Individual also completed the Psychologist’s treatment
recommendations. Based on the foregoing, I find that the Individual has acknowledged his pattern
of maladaptive alcohol use, provided evidence of actions taken to overcome the problem, and
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Mitigating condition (b) applies.
Regarding mitigating condition (d), the Individual successfully completed the IOP and the EAP
alcohol awareness course. He continued attending AA and the EAP abstinence support course for
six months afterward, which the Psychologist described as showing a commitment to aftercare,
even though it was not an official aftercare program through the IOP. Therefore, I find that the
Individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any required aftercare. As
stated above, I have found that the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. Mitigating condition (d) applies.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security
concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has succeeded in fully resolving those
concerns. Therefore, I conclude that granting DOE access authorization to the Individual “will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10
C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should grant access authorization to the
Individual.
10
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals