PSH-25-0144

*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: June 10, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0144
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: October 29, 2025
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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
In 2019 and 2020, the Individual was cited for speeding and failing to maintain the minimum
speed, respectively. Exhibit (Ex.) 16 at 193.2 The Individual was granted access authorization in
2021 following a background investigation. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0144
at 73‒74 (Tr.). In July 2024, the Individual disclosed to the local security office (LSO) that he had
been charged with Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence (DWI). Ex. 10 at 40.
In September 2024, the Individual met with a DOE-contracted Psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist) for
a psychiatric evaluation. Ex. 13 at 98. Following the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a
report of the evaluation (Report) in which she opined that the Individual habitually and binge
consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and “demonstrate[d] traits of antisocial
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by the local security office (LSO) were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each
page. This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the LSO.
- 2 -
personality disorder.” Id. at 103‒04. In November 2024, the Individual was arrested and charged
with driving with a revoked driver’s license. Ex. 8 at 31.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 7‒9. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines G, I, and J of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5‒6.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. 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 in October
2025. The LSO submitted sixteen exhibits (Ex. 1–16). The Individual submitted eight exhibits (Ex.
A‒H). The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of a friend and the
Individual’s sister. Tr. at 3, 12, 27. The LSO offered the testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist. Id. at
3, 77.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the first
basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 6. “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. The SSC cited the Individual having been
arrested and charged with Aggravated DWI and the opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist that the
Individual habitually and binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Ex. 1 at 5.
The LSO’s allegations that the Individual experienced alcohol-related incidents away from work
and habitually and binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment justify its invocation
of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (c).
The LSO cited Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as another
basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 6. “Certain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair judgment, reliability, or
trustworthiness. A formal diagnosis of a disorder is not required for there to be a concern under
this guideline.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. The SSC cited the opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist
that the Individual “demonstrate[d] traits of antisocial personality disorder” and that these traits
constituted a “personality condition or conditions that [could] impair [the Individual’s] judgment,
stability, reliability or trustworthiness.” Ex. 1 at 6. The LSO’s invocation of the DOE Psychiatrist’s
opinion that the Individual had a condition that may impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness justifies its invocation of Guideline I. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(b).
The LSO cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the final basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 7.
“Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its
very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. The SSC cited the Individual’s 2019 and 2020 traffic
- 3 -
infractions, his July 2024 arrest for Aggravated DWI, and his November 2024 arrest for driving
with a revoked driver’s license. Ex. 1 at 7. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual engaged in
criminal conduct justify its invocation of Guideline J. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 31(b).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a Decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
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).
An 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). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her 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
A. Individual’s Traffic Infractions and Aggravated DWI
The Individual was cited for numerous traffic infractions from 2010 to 2015. Ex. 12 at 88‒89
(criminal records indicating that the Individual was cited for failing to maintain required insurance,
vehicle registration, and a valid driver’s license and for speeding); Ex. 16 at 192‒93, 195‒97
(additional criminal records related to the Individual’s traffic infractions); see also Ex. 11 at 56
(reflecting the Individual’s admission to having been cited for the offenses in his response to a
letter of interrogatory).3 In 2019, the Individual was cited for speeding. Ex. 16 at 193. In 2020, the
Individual was cited for failing to maintain the minimum speed. Id.
On July 5, 2024, the Individual was pulled over by a law enforcement officer who observed the
Individual speeding on his motorcycle. Ex. 10 at 44, 46. The officer perceived signs that the
Individual was intoxicated and requested that the Individual undergo a physical field sobriety test,
which the Individual failed. Id. at 46. The Individual refused to undergo breath alcohol testing and
was arrested and charged with Aggravated DWI. Id. at 42, 46. At the time of his arrest for
Aggravated DWI, the Individual was in his mid-thirties and had possessed access authorization for
3 These infractions were not cited by the LSO in the SSC. Ex. 1 at 6.
- 4 -
over three years. Ex. 16 at 146 (indicating the Individual’s birthdate); Tr. at 73‒74 (testifying that
he was granted access authorization in early 2021).
B. Letter of Interrogatory and Evaluation by the DOE Psychiatrist
The LSO issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning his criminal conduct and
alcohol consumption patterns. Ex. 11. In his August 24, 2024, response to the LOI, the Individual
admitted that he was intoxicated on the date of his arrest and indicated that he typically consumed
alcohol to intoxication twice monthly. Id. at 58.
The Individual met with the DOE Psychiatrist for the psychiatric evaluation on September 24,
2024. Ex. 13 at 98. Regarding his alcohol consumption, the Individual reported that for
approximately ten years prior to his arrest for Aggravated DWI he had consumed alcohol to
intoxication twice monthly. Id. at 98‒99. The Individual denied having consumed alcohol since
his arrest, and a phosphatidylethanol (PEth)4 test conducted directly after the psychiatric
evaluation, which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption, corroborated his claimed
abstinence from alcohol. Id. at 102, 105.
Based on the Individual’s self-described pattern of alcohol consumption, the DOE Psychiatrist
concluded that the Individual habitually5 and binge6 consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment. Id. at 103. She recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation or
reformation by completing an alcohol awareness class, working with a therapist, and engaging in
“minimal alcohol use . . . verified for . . . 6 months through the use of PEth testing.” Id. at 104.
In addition to the aforementioned portions of the psychiatric evaluation, the Individual completed
the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory-3 (MMPI-3). Id. at 107. The Individual’s
responses on the MMPI-3 produced a t-score of 81 on the L validity scale. Id.; see also Tr. at 87
(DOE Psychiatrist testifying at the hearing that an “L score over 80 is two standard deviations
above” the mean). Based on the Individual’s elevated t-score on the L validity scale, “multiple
discrepancies in [the Individual’s] history,”7 and the Individual’s history of traffic infractions, the
DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual demonstrated “traits consistent with antisocial
personality disorder.” Ex. 13 at 103. However, she opined that “these traits appear to be relatively
4 PEth is a biomarker for alcohol consumption that can be detected in blood for approximately one month following
moderate or greater episodes of alcohol consumption. Ex. 13 at 102.
5 The DOE Psychiatrist defined habitual consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment as “drinking to the
point of intoxication more than once a month” based on OHA precedent. Id. at 102.
6 The DOE Psychiatrist defined binge consumption of alcohol as “consuming more than five drinks in one sitting”
based on what she characterized as a definition from the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism. Id. at
102; but see Alcohol’s Effects on Health, NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON ALCOHOL ABUSE AND ALCOHOLISM,
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/alcohol-drinking-patterns) (Feb. 2025) (citing a Substance Abuse
and Mental Health Services Administration definition of binge drinking for men as consumption of “five or more
drinks . . . in about two hours”).
7 In her hearing testimony, the DOE Psychiatrist stated that the discrepancies in the clinical interview on which she
relied were the Individual underreporting his alcohol consumption prior to his arrest for Aggravated DWI, minimizing
the severity of his traffic infractions, and failing to disclose a suspension from high school for a prank. Tr. at 86.
- 5 -
mild.” Id. Nevertheless, she concluded that the traits constituted a personality disorder that could
impair the Individual’s trustworthiness. Id. at 104. The DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the
Individual meet with a therapist weekly “until treatment goals are met.” Id.
C. Individual’s Arrest for Driving with a Revoked Driver’s License and Resolution of
Aggravated DWI Charge
In October 2024, the attorney representing the Individual in connection with the Aggravated DWI
charge attended a hearing without the Individual being present related to the charge. Tr. at 57.
Several weeks later, the judge who presided over the hearing issued an order directing the
Individual to have an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle. Id.; Ex. F at 14 (letter from
the attorney representing the Individual in connection with the Aggravated DWI charge). The order
was conveyed to the Individual’s attorney, who did not communicate the judge’s order to the
Individual. Ex. F at 14; Tr. at 57‒58. The Individual’s driver’s license was subsequently revoked
for failing to comply with the judge’s order and on November 20, 2024, the Individual was arrested
for driving with a revoked driver’s license. Ex. 8 at 28. While in jail following his arrest, the
Individual made an appointment to have an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle and,
immediately following his release, the Individual had an ignition interlock device installed on his
vehicle. Tr. at 59‒60; Ex. F at 14. The Individual was ordered to maintain the interlock device on
his vehicle until November 2025. Tr. at 54. At the hearing, the Individual testified that, although
he had sent messages to his attorney via text and through an online portal regarding the hearing
prior to his arrest to which he did not receive a response, he was “upset at [him]self” for not being
more proactive and that he had committed to “staying on top of” his responsibilities in the future
to ensure that “this never happens again.” Id. at 57‒58, 60‒61; see also id. at 33 (Individual’s sister
testifying that the Individual had conveyed the same information to her shortly after his arrest).
The Individual pleaded no contest to the Aggravated DWI charge and was sentenced to probation.
Id. at 53, 75; Ex. E at 12. In order to comply with the terms of his probation, the Individual
completed a DWI education class, attended a Mothers Against Drunk Driving victim impact panel,
and performed twenty-four hours of community service. Ex. A at 1; Ex. B at 2; Ex. C at 3. On July
24, 2025, the Individual was discharged from probation after having successfully completed the
requirements thereof. Ex. E at 12.
D. Individual’s Alcohol-Related Treatment
Following his arrest for Aggravated DWI, the Individual’s employer required him to attend a
weekly alcohol awareness class for six weeks. Ex. 11 at 60. According to the Individual, the
alcohol awareness class provided him with information on alcohol’s effects on the body and
quantifying excessive drinking. Tr. at 52. The Individual successfully completed the alcohol
awareness class in October 2024. Ex. 9 at 33‒36 (reflecting that the Individual completed steps
required by his employer following his arrest for Aggravated DWI).
In August 2024, the Individual began attending counseling with a licensed mental health counselor
(Individual’s Counselor). Tr. at 46; Ex. H at 19‒20 (e-mail from Individual’s Counselor
concerning his participation in treatment). The counseling addressed accountability for the
Individual’s actions related to alcohol, identification of triggers that led the Individual to consume
- 6 -
alcohol, and coping strategies for abstaining from alcohol. Ex. H at 19; but see Tr. at 48‒51
(testimony of the Individual at the hearing that, although he had learned about triggers, he did not
believe that he had any triggers and that he had successfully abstained from alcohol prior to
counseling without coping mechanisms based on his self-determination). The Individual
successfully completed counseling with the Individual’s Counselor in September 2025. Ex. H at
19 (reflecting the Individual’s Counselor’s determination that the Individual had successfully
completed her treatment plan); Tr. at 46. The Individual’s Counselor did not provide the Individual
with any recommendations for further treatment or aftercare. Tr. at 74‒75.
The Individual testified at the hearing that he had abstained from alcohol since his July 2024 arrest
for Aggravated DWI. Id. at 44; see also id. at 33 (Individual’s sister testifying that the Individual
told her he had not consumed alcohol since his arrest for Aggravated DWI). In support of his
claimed abstinence, the Individual provided samples for PEth testing in January 2025, March 2025,
April 2025, May 2025, June 2025, July 2025, and August 2025.8 Ex. D at 4‒10. The Individual’s
friend, who sees him approximately twice weekly and who has seen him consume alcohol to
intoxication in her home in the past, denied having seen the Individual consume alcohol for over
one year prior to the hearing. Tr. at 12, 17‒18, 23‒24.
The Individual intends to abstain from alcohol consumption in the future. Id. at 52; see also id. at
39 (Individual’s sister testifying that the Individual told her he intended to abstain from alcohol in
the future). The Individual has made other positive lifestyle changes, such as eating more healthily
and exercising more, and attributes his motivation to improve his health to learning about the
negative health effects of alcohol consumption. Id. at 52‒53; see also id. at 34 (corroborating
testimony from the Individual’s sister). Although the Individual enjoyed the social aspects of
alcohol consumption, since beginning to abstain from alcohol he has participated in social
activities, such as parties and sporting events, where he used to consume alcohol and experienced
no difficulties abstaining from alcohol. Id. at 49; see also id. at 19‒20 (Individual’s friend testifying
that she had observed the Individual abstain from alcohol in social situations in which he
previously would have consumed alcohol); id. at 27 (Individual’s sister testifying that the
Individual told her that some of his friends no longer like to socialize with him because of his
abstinence from alcohol). The Individual identified his sister and friend, among others, as part of
his support system. Id. at 54‒55; see also id. at 39, 41 (Individual’s sister testifying that she is part
of the Individual’s support system, speaks to him frequently and has access to his location via
cellphone application, and would know if the Individual had resumed alcohol consumption based
on changes to his routine or habits).
E. DOE Psychiatrist’s Updated Opinion
The DOE Psychiatrist testified at the hearing that the Individual had complied with her
recommendations regarding alcohol and demonstrated both rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at
81. She cited to the Individual’s PEth testing and witness accounts of the Individual’s behavioral
modifications as satisfactory to show reformation and the opinion from the Individual’s Counselor
that the Individual had successfully completed her treatment plan as sufficient to show
8 The Individual testified during the hearing that he did not obtain a PEth test in the month of February due to being
“distracted” by his ongoing legal proceedings related to the Aggravated DWI and driving with a revoked driver’s
license. Tr. at 74.
- 7 -
rehabilitation. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual’s prognosis was “good” on a
scale from poor to excellent. Id. at 84. She indicated that the Individual’s prognosis would be better
with the passage of more time without maladaptive alcohol use. Id.
Regarding her opinion as to the Individual’s psychological wellbeing, the DOE Psychiatrist opined
that the Individual’s work with the Individual’s Counselor on accountability demonstrated
“rehabilitation” from the negative personality traits she identified. Id. at 81‒82. She opined that
the Individual’s prognosis with respect to his psychological status was good based on his self-
described accountability for his actions. Id. at 84.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline G
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline G include:
(a) so much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) the individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provides
evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear
and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations;
(c) the individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no previous
history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a treatment
program; 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.
The Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use and expressed the intention to
abstain from alcohol going forward. Additionally, he completed an alcohol education class and
substance abuse counseling as recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist and provided six
consecutive months of negative PEth tests to establish the period of modified consumption or
abstinence specified by the DOE Psychiatrist in the Report. The Individual’s testimony, the
corroborating testimony of his witnesses, and the results of the January 2025 and September 2024
PEth tests suggest that he has abstained from alcohol for longer than the six months recommended
by the DOE Psychiatrist. Moreover, the Individual has made positive lifestyle changes that will
aid him in maintaining an alcohol-free lifestyle going forward. Consequently, the DOE Psychiatrist
opined that the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation and had a good prognosis for avoiding
a return to maladaptive alcohol use.
- 8 -
In light of the aforementioned considerations, I find that the Individual has demonstrated the
applicability of both the second and fourth mitigating conditions. Id. at ¶ 23(b), (d). Therefore, I
conclude that the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under
Guideline G.
B. Guideline I
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline I include:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amendable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
The “condition” identified by the DOE Psychiatrist was based on personality traits and did not rise
to the level of a formal, diagnosable disorder. Moreover, the condition was based on inferences
the DOE Psychiatrist drew from a relatively small number of negative data points, and the DOE
Psychiatrist herself characterized the condition as “mild” in the Report. For these reasons, in
applying the mitigating conditions, I consider “[t]he nature, extent, and seriousness” of the
concerns under Guideline I to be minor. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (listing considerations that must
be considered in applying the Adjudicative Guidelines).
The DOE Psychiatrist indicated that the Individual’s counseling had resulted in the Individual
developing a sense of accountability for his actions which she considered evidence of the
personality condition she identified as having been potentially resolved. Moreover, she opined that
the Individual had a good prognosis for preventing this condition from impairing his
trustworthiness in the future. Taking into account the relatively minor concerns presented under
Guideline I, and the opinion of the DOE Psychiatrist at the hearing, I find that the Individual has
established the applicability of both the third and fifth mitigating conditions. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 29(c), (e).
- 9 -
Having concluded that the Individual has demonstrated the applicability of two mitigating
conditions, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under
Guideline I.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline J include:
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures
are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with
the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment
record, or constructive community involvement.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
The Individual’s arrest for driving with a revoked driver’s license occurred under unusual
circumstances; namely, his legal counsel failing to communicate to him the critical information
that he was required to have an ignition interlock device installed on his vehicle in order to
maintain his driving privileges. The Individual took prompt action to have the interlock device
installed on his vehicle after being arrested. Moreover, he credibly testified that he will be
proactive in obtaining information regarding such important matters in the future rather than
passively waiting for information to be communicated to him, as he did the result of the hearing
in which he was ordered to have the interlock device installed. In light of these considerations, I
find that the Individual’s arrest for driving with a revoked driver’s license is mitigated under the
first mitigating condition. Id. at ¶ 32(a).
The traffic infractions cited by the LSO in the SSC are also mitigated under the first mitigating
condition. In applying this mitigating condition, I have considered “[t]he nature, extent, and
seriousness of the conduct,” which I deem relatively minor. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c). In light of the
relatively minor nature of the traffic offenses, I find that the passage of approximately five years
since the Individual’s last citation is sufficient to resolve the security concerns presented by the
traffic infractions. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(a).
With respect to the Individual’s arrest for Aggravated DWI, the Individual successfully completed
all of the requirements of his probation and was discharged therefrom. Moreover, as discussed
above, the Individual has resolved the concerns presented by his alcohol misuse which led to the
- 10 -
Aggravated DWI. Considering that the Individual is unlikely to misuse alcohol in the future, his
alcohol-related criminal conduct is unlikely to recur. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration
of the “presence of . . . pertinent behavioral changes” and “the likelihood of recurrence”). The
Individual’s age and maturity and the relative recency of his criminal conduct are two
countervailing considerations that weigh against finding the mitigating condition applicable. Id.
However, on balance, I find that the Individual’s behavioral changes with regard to alcohol, which
make his alcohol-related criminal conduct unlikely to recur, significantly outweigh the
considerations under 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) against finding rehabilitation. Accordingly, I find that
the concerns presented by the Individual’s Aggravated DWI are resolved pursuant to the fourth
mitigating condition. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(d).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has resolved each of the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines G, I, and J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, 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
asserted by the LSO. Accordingly, I have determined 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.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals