PSH-25-0120

*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 16, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0120
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 7, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Andrew Dam, 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 be granted.
I. BACKGROUND
A DOE contractor requested access authorization for the Individual in conjunction with his
employment. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 6.2 In September 2023, the Individual, during an Enhanced Subject
Interview (ESI) with an investigator, disclosed that (1) starting in June 2018 he consumed alcohol
every weekend to the point of blacking out and (2) in November 2019 he voluntarily sought
treatment for his alcohol abuse with a treatment provider. Ex. 10 at 142. In January 2024, the
background investigator interviewed a records specialist with the treatment provider,
substantiating the Individual’s disclosures. Id. at 186–87. The interview notes reflect that the
Individual sought treatment for his alcohol use in October 2019 and received a diagnosis for
Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate. Id. In an October 2024 Response to a Letter of
Interrogatory (LOI) (2024 LOI Response), the Individual reconfirmed that, prior to his October
2019 treatment, he would become intoxicated weekly. Ex. 6 at 28.
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 Local Security Office (LSO) combined its exhibits into a single, Bates-stamped PDF workbook. This Decision
references these exhibits by the exhibit number and the Bates stamp page number.
- 2 -
The LSO referred the Individual for a psychiatric evaluation in December 2024 with a DOE
consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist). Ex. 7 at 45. The Individual and the DOE Psychiatrist
discussed the Individual’s alcohol use both prior to and after his 2019 treatment. Id. at 48–49, 57–
58. The Individual disclosed that he continued to consume alcohol following his 2019 treatment,
with intermittent periods of abstinence. Id. at 57–58. Following the evaluation, the DOE
Psychiatrist issued a report (DOE Psychiatrist’s Report). Id. at 43–64. The DOE Psychiatrist
ultimately opined that the Individual had AUD, Severe, pursuant to the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5), and that the Individual had not demonstrated
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 59.
Based on the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report and diagnosis of AUD, Severe; his earlier diagnosis of
AUD, Moderate, from the treatment provider; and his self-disclosed pattern of drinking prior to
his 2019 treatment, the LSO subsequently issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him
that it possessed reliable information creating substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access
authorization. Ex. 1 at 5–8. In the Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the
LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5. The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative
review hearing pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 10. The Director of the Office of Hearings
and Appeals (OHA) appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an
administrative hearing. The LSO submitted ten exhibits (Ex. 1–10). The Individual submitted one
exhibit that I have designated as Exhibit A. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0120
(Tr.) at 9. The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of three additional
witnesses: (1) his sister (Sister); (2) his fiancée (Fiancée); and (3) his mother (Mother). Id. at 3.
The LSO offered the DOE Psychiatrist as its sole witness, and the Individual stipulated to the DOE
Psychiatrist’s expertise in psychiatry. Id. at 3, 8.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
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. Conditions that could raise
security concerns include “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment . . .” and a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of
alcohol use disorder[.]” See id. at ¶ 22(c)‒(d). In citing Guideline G, the LSO cited (1) the
Individual’s admissions during his 2023 ESI and in his 2024 LOI Response that he would regularly
consume alcohol to intoxication from June 2018 to October 2019; (2) the Individual’s diagnosis
of AUD, Moderate, in 2019 from his treatment provider; and (3) the DOE Psychiatrist’s Report,
finding that the Individual had AUD, Severe, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. Accordingly, there is sufficient derogatory information in the possession
of DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines G.
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
- 3 -
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 granting a security clearance. See
Dep’t 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 granting 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, the Individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
a. Individual’s Background and Alcohol Consumption Before 2019 Treatment
The Individual reported that his alcohol consumption started at 15. Ex. 7 at 48. This would have
been in 2009. See Ex. 10 at 48 (Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) disclosing
his birth year as 1994). The Individual noted some major life events in his young adulthood that
led him to drink more heavily. First, in 2014, the Individual tore his rotator cuff and underwent
shoulder surgery, ultimately resulting in his inability to pursue his college-level sport. Tr. at 97;
Ex. 6 at 32. Then, in approximately 2015, the Individual’s friend that he met through high school
sports passed away. Tr. at 60, 97. The Individual’s Mother observed that it had an “impact [on]
[the Individual] and all his friends.” Id. at 60. At the hearing, the Individual explained that his
friend passed away in a river rafting accident after having been missing for forty-eight hours. Id.
at 97. The Individual attended his friend’s memorial service on the Individual’s birthday: “[W]hen
I was supposed to be enjoying regular drinking [on his twenty-first birthday] as most [young people
do] . . . I was going through my friend’s memorial service.” Id. In 2016, the Individual also
discontinued college. Ex. 6 at 32. The Individual described going through “family problems” from
2016 to 2019. Tr. at 85–86; see also id. at 60–61 (Mother’s testimony that she felt “resentment”
with respect to her “expectations of [the Individual]” and his alcohol consumption).
Contemporaneous with this period, the Individual reported experiencing alcohol-related issues, the
bulk of which occurred from about 2016 to 2019. Tr. at 81–87. The Individual self-reported that
his drinking increased over an approximate six-month period in 2015, during which he estimated
he drank four to five times every two weeks, consuming ten drinks on each occasion. Ex. 7 at 48.
Then, starting in 2016, the Individual would set limits on his alcohol consumption, but would
regularly end up drinking more than intended. Id. at 81–82. Then, in 2018, the Individual started
drinking approximately “two to three times per week, approximately four to five drinks over [ ]
two to three . . .” hours and became intoxicated every weekend. Id.; Ex. 10 at 142.; see also Ex. 6
at 28 (reporting weekly intoxication prior to his treatment). The Individual testified that, between
- 4 -
January 2019 and October 2019, he drank alcohol and drove two to three times, which scared him.
Tr. at 84; see also Ex. 7 at 48 (reporting to the DOE Psychologist that he “sometimes drove after
drinking, which scared him”); Ex. 6 at 27 (“At the time I was making []reckless decisions [by]
driving home after nights of drinking.”); see also Tr. at 51 (Mother’s testimony regarding her
concern he would eventually get a DUI during this time period). The Individual’s Mother testified
that she believed his alcohol use impacted the Individual’s “motivation[.]” Tr. at 61. The
Individual’s Sister also pointed out that, during this period, the Individual was “in his early
[twenties][.]” Id. at 27.
b. Individual’s 2019 Treatment, Attendance in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Sobriety,
and Return to Alcohol Consumption
The Individual’s Mother shared that their family sat the Individual down to discuss their concerns
with his alcohol consumption. Id. at 51–52. The Individual also recognized, at the time, that he
had a problem with alcohol. Id. at 79, 99. The Individual and his family first started attending
group therapy in the summer of 2019. Id. at 51–52, 100. Thereafter, the Individual started
substance abuse treatment with a treatment provider, deciding that “it was up to [him] to get help.”
Id. at 86. The Individual completed an intake with the Addiction Medicine and Recovery Services
branch of the treatment provider on October 18, 2019. Ex. A at 1 (letter from treatment provider
dated September 10, 2025). The Individual received a diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, and he
attended a treatment program from October 21, 2019, to November 29, 2019. Id.; Ex. 10 at 186–
87. This “[t]reatment included individual psychotherapy, group therapy, education classes, family
group [therapy], and medication management.” Ex. A at 1.; Ex. 10 at 186–87. The Individual
explained that treatment occurred five days, sometimes six days, per week, and that the program
went from early in the morning into the early afternoon. Ex. 6 at 29.
The Individual testified that when discharged from the program, he received instruction to not
consume alcohol for approximately six months because of its potential interaction with other
medications that his psychiatrist prescribed him. Tr. at 75, 77. The prescribed medications treated
a condition that was not his AUD diagnosis and were not prescribed in relation to his alcohol
consumption. Id. at 75. After six months, the Individual, in consultation with his psychiatrist,
stopped taking the medication. Id. at 88; Ex. 6 at 31. The Individual claimed that he continued
abstaining from alcohol. Tr. at 88. The Individual testified that his earlier treatment provider did
not direct him to permanently abstain from alcohol. Id. at 77.
The Individual estimated he remained alcohol abstinent for six to eight months total and started
drinking again in the summer of 2020. Tr. at 91; Ex. 7 at 48. For four or five months during this
period of sobriety, the Individual attended AA about two to three times per week and even had a
sponsor. Tr. at 94, 101–02. He described learning some helpful things from the “steps” and the
Big Book in AA. Id. at 101–02. However, the Individual felt that there were differences between
the people typically attending AA and himself, noting that his alcohol use had not escalated to the
point of necessitating the involvement of law enforcement, “burning bridges” in terms of his
relationships, “having the shakes[,]” or needing alcohol to sleep. Id. at 78, 94, 101–02. The
Individual stopped attending AA because “there was a lot of [ ] hard-pressing subjects . . .” AA
members discussed, which he “wasn’t experiencing” and did “not necessarily want[ ] to . . . subject
[him]self to at that point.” Id. at 103.
- 5 -
When he resumed drinking in the summer of 2020, the Individual began drinking two to three
drinks, three times per week. Ex. 7 at 48. In his 2024 LOI Response, the Individual estimated that
he became intoxicated3 six to eight times prior to the fall of 2021. Ex. 6 at 27. Then, from fall 2021
to 2024, he decreased his alcohol use to one to two twelve-ounce alcoholic seltzers or beers per
week.4 Id. at 26; Ex. 7 at 48. He estimated that, since resuming drinking again in 2020 to the time
he completed the 2024 LOI response, he would “sometimes go two to four months” without
drinking. Ex. 6 at 26. Since September 2021, the Individual estimated drinking to intoxication only
once or twice—one of those occasions occurring on August 24, 2024, when he had two 24-ounce
beers over three hours, or, by his definition, four standard drinks in three hours. Id.5
His Fiancée, who met the Individual in 2021 and who has cohabitated with the Individual since
2023, has not observed the Individual visibly intoxicated. Id. at 30, 32. His Sister has not seen the
Individual intoxicated since 2018 or 2019 before treatment. Id. at 22. His Mother could not recall
when she last observed the Individual intoxicated but testified that she has not had concerns about
the Individual’s alcohol use since his 2019 treatment. Id. at 51–52.
c. DOE Psychiatrist’s December 2024 Evaluation and Report
In applying for access authorization, the Individual disclosed his alcohol-related treatment, and the
LSO referred the Individual to the DOE Psychiatrist for a December 2024 psychiatric evaluation.
Ex. 4 at 16; Ex. 7 at 45. As part of the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist (1) reviewed the personnel
security documentation, (2) conducted a clinical interview with the Individual, and (3) reviewed a
chain of custody Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test.6 Ex. 7 at 46–56. During the interview, the
Individual recounted his history of alcohol use prior to 2019, his 2019 treatment, and his current
levels of alcohol consumption—consistent with the above in Sections IV(a) through (b). Id. at 46–
49. He also told the DOE Psychiatrist that he had two drinks in the week prior to the interview and
four drinks total over the whole month. Id. at 48. The DOE Psychiatrist interpreted the PEth result
3 When providing the estimated frequency of his intoxication in his 2024 LOI Response, the Individual defined
intoxication as “drink[ing] more than [a] standard drink in an hour . . . .” Ex. 6 at 27; see also Tr. at 74. He further
explained that “[t]he standard [ ] serving size” for a 5% alcohol by volume (ABV) beer is 12 ounces. Ex. 6 at 27.
4 The Individual’s Sister also provided testimony that she observed the Individual drinking less starting three or four
years ago. Tr. at 21. She specifically observed the Individual would go to social events that “tend[ ] to revolve . . .
around drinking” and that the Individual “engage[d] in those events without also having to participate in the alcohol.”
Id.
5 The Individual reported being intoxicated in August 2024, based on his understanding that having more than one
standard drink per hour results in intoxication. Ex. 6 at 27; Tr. at 74. However, the Individual, at the hearing, was
asked how he physically felt when intoxicated. Tr. at 74. The Individual described those indicators as when he feels
“a little warm” or when his “face gets red.” Id. When asked “by that definition when was the last time [he] felt
intoxicated[,]” the Individual estimated that it had not occurred in the last three or four years. Id. at 74–75.
6 PEth “is an abnormal metabolite of ethyl alcohol” and “[n]othing but ethyl alcohol can make PEth in the red blood
cell, so the PEth is 100% specific for alcohol consumption.” Ex. 7 at 55. Because “PEth degrades slowly, and can be
detected for about 28 days[,]” a PEth test can detect “chronic heavy drink[ing], with a window of detection of about
28 days.” Id.
- 6 -
of 28 ng/mL to be “fairly consistent with the information that he provided [ ] regarding his alcohol
use over the last thirty days prior to [the evaluation].” Id. at 58.
Regarding the Individual’s alcohol use prior to his 2019 treatment, the DOE Psychiatrist found the
presence of the following diagnostic criteria for AUD under the DSM-5: (1) “Alcohol is often
taken in larger amounts or over a longer period of time than intended”; (2) “A persistent desire or
unsuccessful effort to cut down or control alcohol use”; (3) “Alcohol use is continued despite
knowledge of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to
have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol”;7 (4) “Recurrent alcohol use in situations where it is
physically dangerous”; (5) “Continued alcohol use despite having persistent or recurrent social or
interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol use”; and (6) “Craving, or
a strong desire or urge to use alcohol.” Id. at 49. The DOE Psychiatrist explained that, because the
Individual met six diagnostic criteria, the AUD diagnosis qualified as “Severe.” Id at 57.
The DOE Psychiatrist’s Report offered no evaluation as to whether the Individual’s AUD was in
remission.8 See generally id. at 45–64. However, the DOE Psychiatrist found inadequate evidence
of rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 59.9 The DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the
Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by (1) enrolling in an intensive and highly structured alcohol
recovery treatment program; (2) attending substance recovery meetings at least three times per
week for twelve months—to include actively working “the steps” and securing a “sponsor”; and
(3) undergoing monthly PEth testing during this time to demonstrate alcohol abstinence. Id.
Regarding reformation, the DOE Psychiatrist indicated that the Individual should “at a minimum,
. . . begin [ ] treatment [ ] with an intensive outpatient program . . .” and that he could not
demonstrate reformation with continued alcohol consumption. Id.
d. Individual’s Alcohol Consumption and Behavior After December 2024 and Related
Testimony
7 I consider that the “physical or psychological problem[s]” exacerbated by alcohol use and relied upon by the DOE
Psychiatrist to have been temporary conditions that are no longer present. See Tr. at 139 (DOE Psychiatrist’s testimony
that he does not have information indicating the presence of the diagnostic criteria since the 2019 treatment).
8 The DSM-5 provides the following on remission:
In early remission: After full criteria for alcohol use disorder were previously met, none of the
criteria for alcohol use disorder have been met for at least 3 months but for less than 12 months
(with the exception that . . . “[c]raving, or a strong desire or urge to use alcohol,” may be met).
In sustained remission: After full criteria for alcohol use disorder were previously met, none of the
criteria for alcohol use disorder have been met at any time during a period of 12 months or longer
(with the exception that . . . “[c]raving, or a strong desire or urge to use alcohol,” may be met).
Am. Psychiatric Ass’n, Diagnostic & Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Alcohol Use Disorder Diagnostic
Criteria (5th ed. Text rev. 2022) (DSM-5) (emphasis in original).
9 The DOE Psychiatrist defined rehabilitation as the completion of treatment and reformation as “a change in
behavior”—specifically remaining abstinent. Tr. at 123–25. Though the Individual had completed treatment, the DOE
Psychiatrist did not consider the Individual to have been successfully rehabilitated since he continued drinking alcohol.
Id. at 125.
- 7 -
The Individual testified that, in December 2024, he was asked to become a godfather. Tr. at 105.
The Individual testified that, in February 2025, he went to a church retreat preceding his godchild’s
confirmation and that the church asked him to give up something until his godchild’s confirmation.
Id. at 106–07. The Individual testified he had already stopped drinking alcohol in December 2024
and decided to continue refraining from alcohol use until the confirmation in April 2025. Id. at
107; see also id. at 18–19, 52 (Sister’s and Mother’s testimony as to the same). The Individual
claimed that he continued to abstain from alcohol use until June 2025, after his godchild’s
confirmation. Id. at 67; see also id. at 38 (Fiancée’s testimony that the Individual had stopped
drinking from December 2024 to June or July 2025), 53 (Mother’s testimony estimating that he
began drinking again in May 2025). During that time, he experienced no physical cravings for
alcohol and would just drink “mocktails” when out at restaurants with his Fiancée. Id. at 69. After
he made this commitment, the Individual’s Sister observed the Individual in restaurants and at a
wedding in 2025 abstaining from alcohol consumption. Id. at 18–19.
From June 2025 to the day of the hearing, the Individual reported having consumed alcohol on
about five occasions, generally having “one, maybe two” drinks “on the lighter side” such as
seltzer or a light beer. Id. at 72; see also id. at 33, 39 (Fiancée’s testimony that she only observed
him drinking once or twice a month when he resumed drinking and that he only had one or two
drinks per occasion). The Individual’s Fiancée last saw the Individual drink alcohol at a family
gathering about three weeks prior to the hearing. Id. at 31–32. She testified that she observed the
Individual only drinking a beer or two over eight hours. Id. at 32. She did not observe the Individual
as impaired or intoxicated. Id. She also recalled them going out for a pizza date on another occasion
and observed him consuming one beer. Id. at 33–34. The Individual’s Mother last observed the
Individual drinking alcohol at a dinner, perhaps in June 2025. Id. She indicated that the Individual
ordered, one or two spritzer-type drinks—the second of which he did not finish and shared with
the table so that everyone could taste. Id. at 53–54. The Individual testified that he had one seltzer
at a sporting event on the weekend prior to the hearing. Id. at 66. The Individual reported that he
had not felt intoxicated during any of these occasions. Id. at 72; see also id. at 54–55 (Mother’s
testimony that she had not observed her son become intoxicated at the dinner).
The Individual and his Fiancée have lived with his Sister and Mother since May 2025. Tr. at 18,
48. Accordingly, all three witnesses have had ample opportunity to directly observe the
Individual’s behaviors and alcohol use. I also credit his Sister’s and Mother’s assessments and
observations of the Individual’s alcohol use, given their prior observations of his problematic
alcohol consumption and given the fact they have, in the past, intervened and participated in family
therapy with respect to his alcohol use. Id. at 19–20, 25–26 (Sister’s testimony regarding her
participation in family therapy with the Individual), 51–52 (Mother’s testimony about the family
sitting the Individual down to express concerns about his alcohol use and to initiate family
therapy). Given the corroborating testimony, I credit the Individual’s testimony as to his drinking
patterns.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that since his 2019 treatment he had (1) not consumed more
alcohol in a session than originally intended, (2) not had an issue with cutting down on his alcohol
consumption, (3) not consumed alcohol in dangerous situations, and (4) not had any family or
personal relationship issues due to his alcohol consumption. Id. at 81–87. The Individual reported
- 8 -
that he has not had a problem with starting and stopping his drinking, insofar as he did not find it
difficult to “abstain again for six months” when asked to become a godfather or to limit himself to
“one to two drinks” when he resumed drinking alcohol. Id. at 90. With respect to his future
intentions on alcohol consumption, the Individual testified that he could “live [his] life without . .
. alcohol . . . [b]ut [he] can also control [his consumption to] one to two drinks . . . .” Id. at 94–95.
The Individual found his drinking “controllable and manageable . . . .” Id. at 95.
In the 2019 treatment, the Individual learned that one of the reasons he consumed alcohol
excessively was past stress and trauma. Tr. at 76. As part of the 2019 treatment, the Individual
underwent cognitive behavioral therapy and learned ways to manage stressors and behaviors that
previously led him to problematic alcohol consumption. Id. at 76, 93 (Individual’s testimony
regarding “finding healthy outlets and replacement behaviors”). In particular, the Individual
described his pre-treatment self as being “withdrawn” which led to him “behaving . . . with reckless
abandon.” Id. at 76–77. Now, however, if he needs to discuss his emotions, the Individual
communicates and expresses himself and surrounds himself with people, so he does not feel alone.
Id. (“I’m surrounding myself with a lot of positivity rather than being withdrawn.”). The Individual
also described that when he needs to “step away,” he engages in activity that is “recreationally
beneficial . . . to [his] health.” Id. at 76. The Individual indicated that part of the 2019 treatment
included yoga, which he has continued post-treatment. Id. at 93. He now attends yoga two to three
times per week, exercises two to three times per week, and walks daily. Id.
As an example of how he handles stressors differently, the Individual provided that his
grandmother died in late 2022. Id. at 103. The Individual testified that, at the funeral, he felt
distraught and mourned her loss. Id. at 104. However, given what he had learned from cognitive
behavioral therapy, he reframed the situation by “remembering that [his] grandma liked to be
around and talking [with family]” and focusing on the fact that it had brought his family together
“even though it was [for] her unfortunate death.” Id. At around the same time, the Individual also
received a job offer and expressed that he refocused on that moment of “joy.” Id. The Individual
also indicated that he acknowledged his emotions and spoke with his Fiancée about his feelings to
process them. Id. at 104–05.
The Individual’s Sister believes that the Individual handles moments of stress differently than how
he did as a young adult, “because he [ ] now has really positive relationships with friends and
family and his romantic relationship, which he did not have prior.” Id. at 27. She explained that
the absence of those supports “contributed to his feeling [that] he needed to just fill that space with
substances.” Id. The Individual’s Fiancée and Mother also testified that the Individual experienced
stress in relation to his clearance investigation and adjudication. Id. at 43–44, 63. Instead of turning
to alcohol use, they both observed, the Individual instead exercised, taking up golfing, a fitness
class, and team recreational sports. Id. at 42, 63.
e. DOE Psychiatrist’s Expert Testimony
The DOE Psychiatrist provided his expert testimony after hearing the testimony of the Individual
and his witnesses. Tr. at 112. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that, with respect to the Individual’s
AUD, Severe, he had no “specifier[ ] for remission” since the Individual had not demonstrated
abstinence. Id. at 118. According to the DOE Psychiatrist, “the American Psychiatric Association,
- 9 -
as well as other associations consider abstinence to be remission rather than . . . controlled
drinking.” Id. However, this definition of remission is not consistent with the DSM-5, which states
plainly that AUD may be considered in sustained remission when “none of the criteria for alcohol
use disorder have been met at any time during a period of 12 months or longer (with the exception
that . . . ‘[c]raving, or a strong desire or urge to use alcohol,’ may be met).” DSM-5, Alcohol Use
Disorder Diagnostic Criteria. The DOE Psychiatrist admitted, at the hearing, that he had no
“information indicating that the diagnostic criteria were present since [the Individual’s 2019
treatment].” Tr. at 139. Based on the foregoing, I decline to credit the DOE Psychiatrist’s opinion
that the Individual’s AUD is not in remission.
The DOE Psychiatrist explained again his recommendations for rehabilitation and reformation as
discussed earlier in Section IV(c). Id. at 123–25. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that, based on the
testimony he heard, the Individual had not demonstrated either rehabilitation or reformation since
he continued to consume alcohol and has not engaged in the recommended intensive outpatient
treatment program. Id. at 125–26. The DOE Psychiatrist provided the following explanation for
why he remained concerned that the Individual continued to drink alcohol:
[C]ontrolled drinking is not recommended for individuals who suffer from
substance use or alcohol use disorders, certainly in moderate to severe categories .
. . . [E]ssentially the only factor that we know that predicts or is correlated with
reduced problematic drinking is abstinence, and the longer the abstinence, the more
likely of continuing abstinence. And so, there’s . . . much higher relapse [rates] in
the first three months [of abstinence][.] [T]here’s higher relapse [rates] in the first
year. After five years the relapse rate goes down somewhat. And so[,] we know that
individuals who are able to stay abstinent for a prolonged period of time have the
lowest correlation with future problematic drinking.
Id. at 126–27. The DOE Psychiatrist acknowledged, however, that the Adjudicative Guidelines
reference modified consumption as a potential basis for mitigating alcohol-related security
concerns and that some sectors of the behavioral health community support modified or controlled
drinking. Id. at 141. When asked whether controlled drinking worked for the Individual, in
consideration of the time that passed since the 2019 treatment without alcohol-related issues, the
DOE Psychiatrist testified that he “c[ouldn’t] really speak” on “whether that will go on to be the
case in the future . . .” and re-emphasized that “he would still be considered at heightened risk for
problematic drinking in the future, according to the information . . . in the field.” Id. at 127–28.
The DOE Psychiatrist provided that, if the Individual had not had a history of suffering from AUD,
Moderate or Severe, he would not have found the Individual’s current consumption of one to two
drinks per week to be problematic drinking. Id. at 142–43.
V. ANALYSIS
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;
- 10 -
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress
in a treatment program; and
(d) the individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
The Individual’s “behavior” or “pattern of maladaptive alcohol use” started in about 2016.
Eventually in 2018, the Individual would, two or three times per week, drink four to five drinks
over two hours and became intoxicated weekly to cope with various stressors he experienced as a
young adult. The Individual’s alcohol consumption led to issues with his family relationships, and
he also started to drink and drive. All this culminated in the Individual seeking alcohol-related
treatment in October 2019, which he completed in November 2019, and his AUD diagnoses. Both
his pre-2019 pattern of consumption and the related diagnoses formed the basis for the security
concerns cited in the SSC.
The Individual self-disclosed to the LSO and the DOE Psychiatrist that he resumed drinking in the
summer of 2020 at a lessened amount, approximately two to three drinks, three times per week.
Then, from fall 2021 to present, he decreased his alcohol use to one to two drinks per week with
intermittent months of sobriety. I credit this self-reported level of his current consumption for two
reasons. First, the Individual’s positive PEth test corroborated the level of consumption he reported
to the DOE Psychiatrist. Second, the Individual’s witnesses corroborated the Individual’s self-
report. Given that the Individual’s family in the past raised the Individual’s alcohol consumption
as an issue for treatment before and currently have directly observed his behaviors and alcohol
consumption, their testimony is credible.
Regarding the first mitigating condition, the pre-treatment pattern of alcohol use occurred regularly
over an approximate three-year period from 2016 to 2019. Accordingly, I cannot find his alcohol
consumption infrequent. Additionally, while sympathetic to the various stressors the Individual
experienced that led him to drink alcohol—including the loss of his friend, discontinuing college,
and family strain—many young adults experience similar circumstances. Accordingly, I cannot
find that the problematic alcohol consumption occurred under “such unusual circumstances.”
However, the problematic behaviors leading to the AUD diagnoses and raised in the SSC occurred
long ago. The Individual reported that he has not engaged in problematic alcohol consumption
- 11 -
since his 2019 treatment.10 Furthermore, given the DOE Psychiatrist’s admission that he lacked
information indicating the presence of the diagnostic criteria for AUD since 2019 and the DSM-5
criteria for remission, the DOE Psychiatrist provided me an insufficient basis to support his finding
that the Individual’s AUD is not in remission. Furthermore, as stated above, I credited the
Individual’s witnesses who observed that the Individual has not engaged in problematic alcohol
consumption after the 2019 treatment and that his current alcohol consumption remains not
problematic. The behaviors underlying the AUD diagnoses and giving rise to the SSC’s concerns
occurred prior to 2019. The record includes some references to intoxication; however, this appears
to have largely been absent within the last three to four years. I thus consider the behaviors to have
occurred “long ago.”
I consider the long period of modified consumption without reported issues probative of the
unlikelihood of recurrence and the Individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgment.
10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring that I consider the “recency” of the conduct). The years of modified
alcohol consumption without any issues is probative that the maladaptive behaviors are unlikely
to recur and demonstrate current reliability. I also consider that, prior to his 2019 treatment, the
Individual responded to pre-2019 stressors in his early to mid-twenties with problematic alcohol
consumption. Id. (requiring that I consider the “age and maturity” of an individual, as well as the
“presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes”). Since then,
the Individual has demonstrated both maturity and a changed approach to addressing stressors such
that the Individual has not needed to use alcohol. For example, the Individual used coping
mechanisms learned through cognitive behavioral therapy to cope with his grandmother’s death—
specifically, processing and articulating his feelings, reframing to positive thoughts, and engaging
in recreational activities. The Individual’s Fiancée and his family serve as a support network, as
well. Given the above, I find the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption unlikely to recur,
and his AUD diagnoses and past behaviors do not cast doubt on his current judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness. Mitigating condition (a) applies.
Regarding the second and fourth mitigating conditions, both require “modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b),
(d) (emphasis added). The Individual’s attendance in the 2019 treatment program, attendance in
AA for a time after treatment, and use of cognitive behavioral therapy to address stressors meet
elements in support of the second and fourth mitigating conditions. However, the Individual
continues to consume alcohol. I cannot determine if this consumption is “in accordance with
treatment recommendations” he received as part of his post-2019 treatment aftercare because I
only have the Individual’s testimony that none of his treatment providers instructed him to stop
drinking entirely. The Individual provided no corroborating documentation or testimony.
Furthermore, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended abstinence as an element of rehabilitation and
treatment, which the Individual has not accomplished. At this point, the Individual has not met his
evidentiary burden, and mitigating conditions (b) and (d) lack application.
10 The Individual self-reported experiencing intoxication six to eight times per year prior to 2021, only once or twice
since 2021, and once in August 2024. Ex. 6 at 27. This is based on his definition of having more than one standard
drink per hour. Id. This pattern of consumption was available to the LSO, and the LSO did not raise this as a security
concern in the SSC. See Ex. 1 at 5. Furthermore, the Individual testified that he had not felt physical symptoms related
to intoxication in three or four years. Tr. at 75.
- 12 -
Regarding the third mitigating condition, the Individual has completed treatment but is not
currently enrolled in treatment. Accordingly, mitigating condition (c) does not apply.
Above, I found that the Individual established the applicability of mitigating condition (a) under
Guideline G. Accordingly, the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO.
VI. CONCLUSION
Above, I found that there existed sufficient derogatory information in the possession of DOE to
raise security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all
the relevant information, 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 security concerns set forth
under Guideline G. Accordingly, I find the Individual has demonstrated that granting his security
clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent
with the national interest. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set
forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Andrew Dam
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals