PSH-25-0123

*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 19, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0123
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 4, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Diane L. Miles, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position for which he holds a security
clearance. In January 2024, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), in which he reported that between January 2023 and March 2023, he received
counseling, for reasons involving his alcohol use. Exhibit (Ex.) 10 at 106.2
In January 2025, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual requesting additional details about his alcohol consumption and alcohol treatment. Ex.
6. In the LOI, the Individual admitted that in December 2022, while under the influence of alcohol
outside of work, he threatened to harm a co-worker. Id. at 28–29. He also reported that he last
consumed alcohol on January 1, 2025. Id. at 32.
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 DOE’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 293-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This Decision will
cite to the DOE’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook regardless of
any internal pagination.
2
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s LOI responses, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who
conducted a clinical interview of the Individual in February 2025 and issued a report (the Report)
of his findings. Ex. 7. During the evaluation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he last
consumed alcohol on January 1, 2025. Id. at 50. However, on February 14, 2025, approximately
45 days after his reported last alcoholic drink, the Individual underwent Phosphatidylethanol
(PEth)3 testing, the result of which was positive at a level of 181 ng/mL, which a medical doctor
opined was irrefutable evidence that the Individual consumed alcohol after January 1, 2025. Id. at
55–58.
The Report indicates that after taking his February 14, 2025, PEth test, but before learning of the
results, the Individual admitted the DOE Psychologist that he lied about not drinking after January
1, 2025, and that he drank the night before the evaluation. Ex. 7 at 52. The DOE Psychologist
opined that the Individual’s dishonesty during his evaluation casts doubt on his judgment,
reliability, and trustworthiness. Id. Based on his evaluation of the Individual and his review of the
Individual’s PEth test result, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual met sufficient
diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 53–54.
In April 2025, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security clearance. Ex.
1 at 6–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E (Personal
Conduct) and Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
On May 6, 2025, the Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded the
Individual’s request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. 2. The Director of OHA
appointed me as the Administrative Judge in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10
C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from five witnesses: the Individual, the
Individual’s ex-wife, the Individual’s Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, the Individual’s
Counselor, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0123
(Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted ten exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 10. The Individual
submitted nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through I.
3 The Report indicates that “PEth can only be made when consumed ethyl alcohol reacts with a compound in the Red
Blood Cell (RBC) membrane.” Ex. 7 at 50. PEth builds up in the RBC with repeated drinking episodes, and a parallel
process slowly eliminates the accumulated PEth (with an elimination half-life of about 6 days). Id. PEth can still be
detected in the blood for about 28 days after alcohol consumption has ceased. Id. A PEth test result exceeding 20
ng/mL is evidence of “moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Id.
3
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
As previously mentioned, the Notification Letter included the SSC, which sets forth the derogatory
information that raised concerns about the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. The
SSC informed the Individual that information in the possession of the DOE created substantial
doubt concerning his eligibility for a security clearance under Guideline E (Personal Conduct) and
Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1 at 5–6.
A. Guideline E
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgment, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. “Of special interest is any failure to cooperate or provide truthful and candid
answers during national security investigative or adjudicative processes.” Id. Among those
conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern
is ”deliberately providing false or misleading information; or concealing or omitting information,
concerning relevant facts to an employer, investigator, security official, competent medical or
mental health professional involved in making a recommendation relevant to a national security
eligibility determination, or other official government representative.” Id. at ¶ 16(b).
In invoking Guideline E, the LSO cited that the Individual, in his January 2025 LOI and during
his February 2025 psychological evaluation, reported that he last consumed alcohol on January 1,
2025. Ex. 1 at 5. However, the Individual’s February 14, 2025, PEth test result was positive at a
level of 181 ng/mL, which “indicate[d] alcohol consumption in the last 30 days and suggest[ed] a
significant discrepancy in [his] self-reported drinking and problems with his trustworthiness and
reliability.” Id. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline E is justified.
B. Guideline G
Under Guideline G, “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security
concern under Guideline G include “alcohol-related incidents 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.” Id. at ¶ 22(a). A security concern may also be raised
by a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical
psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at
¶ 22(d).
In invoking Guideline G, the LSO cited the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met
sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, without evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id.4 The LSO also cited the Individual’s admission, in his January
4 The LSO also cited the Individual’s February 14, 2025, PEth test result of 181 ng/mL, which a medical doctor opined
indicated alcohol consumption within the prior 30 days. Ex. 1 at 5. While this information informed the DOE
Psychologist’s opinion, it does not appear to raise security concerns in of itself and therefore I will not consider it as
a discrete security concern.
4
2025 LOI, that in December 2022, he threatened to harm a co-worker while under the influence of
alcohol. Id. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
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 their eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
In December 2022, the Individual was consuming alcohol while at home, and he sent text messages
to a work group chat, which included his supervisor. Ex. 10 at 120; Ex. 6 at 28. The Individual
sent a text message to the group chat, threatening to hit a co-worker with a bat. Ex. 10 at 120; Ex.
3 at 17. Because the Individual was certified in the DOE’s Human Reliability Program (HRP), the
Individual’s supervisor notified the cognizant HRP officials that that Individual threatened to harm
someone and was potentially misusing alcohol. Ex. 10 at 124. The Individual’s supervisor also
told the Individual to see the HRP’s lead psychologist (HRP Psychologist). Id. The Individual told
the HRP Psychologist that, at the time he sent the text message, he was going through a divorce,
he was grieving a family member, and that he could not manage his emotions. Id. at 120. In January
2023, the HRP Psychologist reported to the DOE that the Individual’s text message was related to
his divorce and alcohol use, and he referred the Individual to his Counselor, for individual therapy
sessions. Ex. 10 at 124; Ex. 4 at 20.
From January 2023 to March 2023, the Individual used his employer’s Employee Assistance
Program (EAP) to attended six, bi-weekly sessions with his Counselor, which were focused on
grief coping mechanisms. Ex. 10 at 124, 136; Tr. at 68, 90–91. The Individual’s Counselor told
the Individual that his primary problem was his alcohol consumption, but the Individual believed
that he needed to focus on his grief and sadness. Tr. at 90–91. The Individual’s Counselor
explained that during these sessions, he recommended that the Individual drink alcohol in
moderation, rather than abstain from alcohol. Id. at 91. For the next two years, the Individual
continued to consume alcohol, weekly. Id. at 93.
5
In the January 2025 LOI, the Individual reported that in December 2022, he was using alcohol as
a coping mechanism to manage his grief. Ex. 6 at 30. He consumed three to six 12-ounce beers,
once a week. Id. at 31. After the text message incident, he claimed to have decreased his alcohol
consumption to “a few beers on Friday evenings only,” and he stopped drinking “hard liquor.” Id.
at 31–32. He also reported that he last consumed alcohol on January 1, 2025. Id. at 32.
During his February 2025 psychological evaluation, the Individual reported that he had attempted
to cut down on his drinking in the past, but alcohol had control over him. Ex. 7 at 49. The DOE
Psychologist contacted the Individual’s Counselor, who told the DOE Psychologist that, in 2023,
the Individual was remorseful for his text message incident and that he was committed to managing
his alcohol consumption to be more responsible. Id. at 48. The DOE Psychologist noted that the
Individual reported to him he last consumed alcohol on January 1, 2025, just as he reported in his
January 2025 LOI. Id. at 50. After reviewing the results of the Individual’s February 2025 PEth
test, which was positive at a level of 181 ng/mL, the DOE Psychologist wrote that, based on the
opinion of the medical doctor, if the Individual had abstained from alcohol since January 1, 2025,
his February 2025 PEth test would have been negative and his test result therefore suggested a lack
of trustworthiness. Id. The Individual later admitted to the DOE Psychologist that he lied about
not drinking after January 1, 2025, and that he drank the night before the evaluation. Id. at 52.
The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5-
TR for a diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
Id. at 53–54. The DOE Psychologist wrote in the Report that the Individual could demonstrate
adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his AUD, Moderate, by seeking alcohol treatment, in the
form of an intensive outpatient treatment program (IOP), with structured aftercare. Id. at 53. The
DOE Psychologist further recommended that, to show rehabilitation, the Individual should abstain
from alcohol for 12 months, supported by monthly PEth testing. Id. To demonstrate reformation
from his AUD, Moderate, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual could abstain from
alcohol for a period of 18 months, supported by monthly PEth testing. Id.
In March 2025, the Individual started attending AA meetings and he obtained an AA sponsor. Tr.
at 28. He found the AA meetings to be a judgment-free zone where he could be honest, and
explained that he chaired AA “newcomers meetings,” during which he shared his life story. Id. at
65–67. The Individual submitted AA attendance sheets to support his testimony that he has
attended since March 2025. Ex. E; Ex. G. The Individual’s AA sponsor described the Individual
as meticulous and eager to find a solution to his alcohol addiction, and he stated that the Individual
had responded well to the AA program. Tr. at 29. Between March 2025 and June 2025, the
Individual attended AA meetings with his sponsor once or twice a week, as reflected in the
Individual’s AA attendance sheets, and as of June 2025, they started working the steps of the AA
program together. Tr. at 30–31; Ex. G. The AA sponsor and the Individual also work together on
homework assignments, and identifying “resentments and fears” related to alcohol. Tr. at 38–39.
As of the date of the hearing, the Individual was on step nine of the AA program. Id. at 37. The
AA sponsor explained that the Individual actively participates during the meetings, and he chaired
AA meetings in September 2025 and October 2025. Id. at 32. The AA sponsor taught the
Individual that, if he feels stressed, he should contact him and attend an AA meeting. Id. at 45.
The AA sponsor believed that the Individual no longer had the urge to drink. Id. at 38, 50–51. The
Individual intends to continue attending AA for the foreseeable future. Id. at 52. As of the hearing,
the Individual was still attending AA. Id. at 68, 97–99.
6
On March 31, 2025, the Individual started attending an IOP, which helped him learn that there was
a part of his brain telling him that he needs alcohol to feel satisfied. Tr. at 69‒70, 84. The Individual
explained that, compared to AA, which he described as a fellowship, where people can share their
feelings about alcohol, the IOP was more clinical, and helped him identify the cause of his alcohol
problem. Id. at 70. He learned that he was using alcohol as a coping mechanism, it made him feel
more confident, and it helped him “numb bad feelings.” Id. The Individual submitted IOP
attendance records to support his testimony that he attended the IOP four nights a week, three
hours a night, for eight weeks. Id. at 71; Ex. D at 1, 3–4. His group sessions covered the reasons
for substance abuse, understanding the triggers to drink, and how to manage one’s emotions
without alcohol. Tr. at 95–96. The Individual submitted a Certificate of Completion for the IOP,
which indicated that he completed that IOP on May 22, 2025. Ex. A. The Individual’s Counselor
explained that he leads the group sessions at the IOP, the Individual’s participation in the IOP was
“more engaged than [he] anticipated,” and the Individual showed a lot of enthusiasm and interest.
Tr. at 112. He stated that during the group sessions, the Individual was very supportive to other
participants. Id. at 115.
The Individual submitted attendance records to support his testimony that since May 2025 he had
attended the IOP’s aftercare program, twice a week, and he stated that the aftercare sessions
included discussions about the disease of alcoholism. Tr. at 72, 74; Ex. D at 1–2; Ex. I. The
meetings were run by either the Individual’s Counselor or another therapist at the IOP. Tr. at 73.
As of the hearing, the Individual still attended aftercare sessions, about once or twice a week, and
he expressed that he intended to continue attending the aftercare program. Id. at 98. The Individual
submitted evidence that he underwent 12 PEth tests, dated from March 2025 to February 2026, the
results of which were negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. B; Ex. F.
The Individual also had individual therapy sessions, monthly, with his Counselor, from March
2025 to December 2025. Tr. at 96–97; Ex. H. During these sessions, he discussed his progress
through recovery, what he learned from AA and the IOP, and the tools he was learning to manage
his life without alcohol. Tr. at 97. The Individual’s Counselor explained that the Individual’s
minimization of his alcohol use, and his initial dishonesty to the DOE Psychologist, was a typical
symptom of AUD. Id. at 130‒31. He believed the Individual was adequately rehabilitated from his
AUD by his participation in the IOP, his attendance at the aftercare program, and his negative PEth
tests. Id. at 136‒37. Based on his interactions with the Individual, he believed the Individual had
gained insight into his prior alcohol use and understood the consequences of his alcohol use. Id. at
129. He stated the Individual’s prognosis for maintaining sobriety was “good to excellent.” Id. at
122.
The Individual’s ex-wife testified that she maintains regular contact with the Individual because
of their co-parenting responsibilities, seeing him at least once a week and texting with him almost
daily. Tr. at 12. When she learned that the Individual’s security clearance was suspended, she knew
the Individual wanted to talk to someone who had experience with recovering from alcohol
addiction, so she reached out to a friend, who introduced the Individual to a man who became his
AA sponsor. Id. at 15. She believed the Individual was dedicated to attending AA and was learning
a lot by listening to other people share their experiences. Id. at 16. The Individual also told her that
since he stopped drinking, he is “clearheaded,” he likes the way he feels, and he understands that
he is changing his lifestyle. Id. at 16–17. She had not seen alcohol in the Individual’s home and
7
she was confident she would know if the Individual had resumed drinking, based on her past
experience with him during their marriage. Id. at 21.
The Individual testified that he realized the extent of his alcohol problem when he was waiting to
take a PEth test after meeting with the DOE Psychologist. Tr. at 61. He realized that all the time
he spent rationalizing his behavior, he did to keep his alcohol habit “alive,” and drinking alcohol
the day before he was scheduled to see a government psychologist showed that he had a serious
problem. Id. at 62. He also admitted to lying about his alcohol consumption during his initial
interview with the DOE Psychologist. Id. at 60.
The Individual also testified that his sobriety is important to him because he likes how he feels and
how present he can be in his children’s lives. Tr. at 75‒76. He explained that when he tried to
abstain from alcohol in the past, he wasn’t happy about it, and he felt like he was doing it for
someone else. Id. at 87–88. Now, he realizes that he can enjoy his life without alcohol. Id. at 88.
He has removed all alcohol and alcohol paraphernalia from his home. Id. at 79, 100. When he goes
out to dinner, he does not drink, and he does not feel the need to buy alcohol at the grocery store.
Id. at 101. He believes his relationship with alcohol is such that one drink would lead him back to
his old behaviors, and he has no intention of drinking again. Id. at 43, 79, 84‒85. He also uses the
Serenity Prayer as a coping mechanism for his emotions. Id. at 87. Finally, he explained that
because he now acknowledges that he had an alcohol problem, he is very honest and forthcoming
about his prior alcohol use, which he wasn’t comfortable with in the past. Id. at 102–03.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing
and reviewing the Individual’s exhibits, he believed the Individual was rehabilitated from his
AUD, Moderate. Tr. at 143. He explained that the Individual’s minimization of his alcohol use,
and his lack of candor during the evaluation, are typical of substance abusers. Id. at 134. The
Individual completed an IOP and aftercare, going beyond required aftercare to maintain regularity,
consistency, and commitment to the program, and he had achieved one year of abstinence, as
reflected in his 12 negative PEth tests. Id. at 136–37, 143. He believed the Individual had gained
insight into his need to maintain his relationship with his children and maintain his career. Id. at
137. He also stated that the Individual’s participation in AA and individual counseling were
positive factors and showed his commitment to recovering from his AUD. Id. at 137, 144–45.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
8
(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 have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his alcohol
consumption under ¶ 23(b) and ¶ 23(d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
The Individual initially denied that his text messaging incident was caused, in part, by his alcohol
consumption. However, he later admitted he had a problem with alcohol when he realized he had
consumed alcohol the day before he was to meet with a government psychologist, and his job was
at stake. Since meeting with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual submitted evidence that he
successfully completed the treatment program recommended by the DOE Psychologist to resolve
his AUD, Moderate. From March 2025 to May 2025, the Individual participated in, and
successfully completed, an IOP, during which he identified his use of alcohol as a coping
mechanism for managing difficult emotions. The Individual’s Counselor testified that the
Individual was actively engaged in the IOP program. The Individual also submitted sufficient
evidence to establish that he continues to attend the IOP’s aftercare program, twice a week. The
Individual also went beyond the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendation by actively
participating in AA, since March 2025, and using the assistance of his AA sponsor to work the
steps of the program. The Individual’s Counselor testified that between March 2025 and December
2025, the Individual had participated in individual counseling sessions, during which he focused
on using the tools he learned to manage his life without alcohol, and he demonstrated that he had
gained insight into his prior alcohol use. The Individual’s Counselor stated that the Individual’s
prognosis for maintaining his sobriety was good to excellent.
Finally, the Individual submitted 12 negative PEth tests, dated from March 2025 to February 2026,
to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol, the full length of which
has been approximately one year, and the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual was
rehabilitated from his AUD, Moderate. The Individual testified that since he stopped drinking, he
is more present in his children’s lives, and he no longer feels the urge to drink. His stated
commitment to continue attending AA and the IOP’s aftercare program shows he is committed to
maintaining his sobriety.
Therefore, I conclude that the Individual has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provided evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, successfully completed the treatment
program recommended by the DOE Psychologist, and demonstrated a clear and established pattern
of abstinence from alcohol sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 23(b), (d).
9
B. Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17.
Having mitigated the alcohol concerns under Guideline G, I conclude that the Guideline E
concerns raised by the Individual’s dishonesty during his psychological evaluation have also been
mitigated under ¶ 17(d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
As explained above, the Individual admitted that he lied to the DOE Psychologist about his alcohol
consumption, and that since completing alcohol treatment, he has acknowledged that he had an
alcohol problem and he is now honest and forthcoming about his prior use. The Individual’s
Counselor who had discussed the Individual’s alcohol consumption with him since 2023 and
counseled the Individual during the IOP and on an individual basis, testified that based on his
interactions with the Individual, he believed the Individual had since gained insight into his alcohol
use. Finally, both the DOE Psychologist and the Individual’s Counselor opined that the
10
Individual’s minimization of his alcohol use, and his initial dishonesty to the DOE Psychologist,
was a typical symptom of AUD.
The Individual also submitted sufficient evidence to show that he obtained alcohol treatment to
address his AUD, Moderate, and alleviate the factors that contributed to his dishonesty related to
his prior alcohol consumption. The Individual completed an IOP and aftercare, as recommended
by the DOE Psychologist, and he received additional treatment in the form of participating in AA
and individual counseling sessions with his Counselor. The Individual also submitted evidence he
had abstained from alcohol for approximately one year. Finally, I am persuaded by the DOE
Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual has shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his
AUD, Moderate.
Therefore, I find that the security concerns related to the Individual’s previous dishonesty as to his
alcohol consumption are unlikely to recur in the future and he has mitigated the stated Guideline
E concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 17(d).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines E and G of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence
to resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that
restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would
be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane L. Miles
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals