PSH-25-0151

*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 12, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0151
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 8, 2026
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 For
the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should not be
restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security
clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received derogatory information regarding the
Individual’s alcohol use. Based on that information, the LSO began the present administrative
review proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was
entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt
regarding his eligibility to continue holding a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). The Director of OHA appointed me as the Administrative Judge
in this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the
Individual presented the testimony of three witnesses and testified on his own behalf. The LSO
presented the testimony of the DOE contractor-psychologist (the Psychologist) who had evaluated
the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0151 (hereinafter cited as
“Tr.”). The LSO submitted twelve exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 12 (hereinafter cited as
“Ex.”). The Individual submitted seven exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through G.
1 Under the regulations, “‘[a]ccess authorization’ means an administrative determination that an individual is eligible
for access to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.5(a). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guideline G of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline G states that “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security
concern include:
(a) Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the
influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other
incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use
or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an
intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the
welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed
with alcohol use disorder;
(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) Diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional (e.g.,
physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker)
of alcohol use disorder;
(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment
recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation,
treatment, or abstinence.
Id. at ¶ 22.
The LSO alleges that:
• In February 2024, the Individual submitted to a random alcohol test at work which yielded
results of .046 g/210L at 8:03 a.m. and .047 g/210L at 8:20 a.m. The Individual admitted
that he had consumed nine ounces of bourbon between 4:30 p.m. and 9:45 p.m. the previous
night. He also admitted that he drove himself to work that day, reporting at about 6:15 a.m.
3
• In January 2025, the Psychologist evaluated the Individual. The Individual submitted to a
Phosphatidylethanol2 (PEth) test as part of the evaluation, which returned a positive result
of 338 ng/mL, indicating alcohol consumption within the past 30 days.
• In February 2025, the Psychologist issued a report of her evaluation of the Individual. In
the report, the Psychologist concluded that the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders–Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) criteria
for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, severe. She also concluded that the Individual had
not displayed evidence of rehabilitation or reformation because he continued to consume
alcohol.
Ex. 1 at 5.3
The Individual’s alcohol test at work showed that he had a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC)
higher than .02, a level at which a person can experience altered mood and slight loss of judgment,
and nearly .05, a level at which a person may feel uninhibited and experience lowered alertness
and impaired judgment. Blood Alcohol Content (BAC), Cleveland Clinic (last visited December
23, 2025), available at https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/diagnostics/22689-blood-alcohol-
content-bac. The Individual also received an Alcohol Use Disorder diagnosis from a DOE-
contracted Psychologist. Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns are justified under conditions
(b) and (d) of Guideline 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 of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. The regulatory standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or
restoring a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly
consistent with the national interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that
security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913
F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The Individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The Individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
2 “PEth is a metabolite of ethyl alcohol and can only be made when consumed ethyl alcohol reacts with a compound
in the Red Blood Cell (RBC) membrane.” Ex. 13 at 208. “PEth builds up in the RBC membrane with repeated drinking
episodes . . . [and] can still be detected in blood for about 28 days after alcohol consumption has ceased.” Id.
3 DOE exhibit page numbers will be cited using the Bates stamp in the top right corner of the documents.
4
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
On February 11, 2024, while watching the Super Bowl with friends at his home, the Individual
consumed at least nine ounces of bourbon—six standard servings—between 4:30 and 9:30 p.m.
Ex. 8 at 46–47. The following morning, the Individual reported to work and was randomly selected
to undergo a drug and alcohol screening in connection with his certification in the Human
Reliability Program (HRP). Ex. 6 at 33. He took breath tests at 8:03 a.m. and 8:20 a.m., which
returned results of .046 g/210L and .047 g/210L respectively.4 Id. at 34. These results were higher
than the acceptable limit for HRP and his site access was restricted. Id. at 33.
The Individual was temporarily removed from HRP following his positive breath tests. Ex. 3 at
24. The HRP required him to meet with a substance abuse counselor. Ex. 4 at 27; Tr. at 116. After
evaluating the Individual, that counselor opined that the Individual appeared to meet sufficient
diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, mild, and recommended that he
complete an Alcohol Misuse course, a Substance Misuse Awareness course, and ten hours of
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or a similar recovery support program. Ex. 4 at 27; Ex. 3 at 24; Ex.
8 at 47. The Individual provided documentation to HRP in March 2024 showing that he had
completed the requirements. Ex. 4 at 27. In October 2024, a psychologist at the Individual’s
worksite raised concerns about the Individual’s Alcohol Use Disorder diagnosis, triggering
investigation by the LSO. Ex. 8 at 47.
The Individual was referred to the Psychologist for an evaluation, which occurred on January 28,
2025, and included PEth testing. Ex. 8 at 45. The Psychologist relied on the information in the
Individual’s security file, the Individual’s clinical interview during the evaluation, and the results
of psychological testing and the PEth test in reaching her conclusions. Id. at 45, 48–49. In her
February 2025 report of the evaluation, the Psychologist wrote that the Individual denied having a
“pattern of alcohol consumption” but consistently characterized his alcohol consumption as
occurring two to four times per week, consisting of one to four drinks, avoiding worknight
4 The Psychologist wrote in her report that
a man of [the Individual’s] stature would who consumed nine ounces of presumed 40% ABV
bourbon over the course of five hours would have had a BAC of .077 g/210L at the time he stopped
drinking and would have produced a BAC of zero at the time of the random breath test the next
morning. Given that men, on average, metabolize alcohol at the rate of 0.015 g/210L per hour, it is
estimated that [the Individual’s] BAC at 9:30 PM the night prior to the positive breath test was
around .20 g/210L. This means he would have likely consumed the equivalent of 12 to 13 standard
drinks on 2/11/24. This is significantly more alcohol than the subject reported consuming.
Ex. 8 at 47.
5
drinking, and drinking more when he did not work the next day.5 Id. at 49. The Individual stated
his alcohol consumption had not changed in the previous year. Id. at 48. The Individual reported
that his most recent drink before the evaluation was the previous day after returning home from
work. Id. He consumed a sixteen-ounce “Clubtail” (10% Alcohol By Volume) at 12:30 p.m. and
two “double-pour” glasses of bourbon between 5:00 and 6:30 p.m. Id. The Psychologist noted that
this was the equivalent of nearly seven standard drinks in one day. Id. at 49. The Individual
reported having consumed alcohol on “ninety percent of the days” during the preceding month
(January 2025) and that on five or six occasions that month he consumed five or more drinks at
one sitting. Id. at 48. The Psychologist noted that this pattern of consumption was greater than
what the Individual had reported drinking in the past and was, therefore, inconsistent with his
statement that his alcohol consumption had not changed over the previous year. Id. She further
opined that the pattern of consumption the Individual reported for January 2025 was “a pattern of
binge drinking as well as heavy and very high-risk drinking.” Id. at 49. See also id. at 50 (stating
that the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) considers five drinks in a
day to be binge drinking for men). She also noted that the Individual “has yet to acknowledge that
he drank too much [the night before his positive test at work] and either intentionally underreported
his alcohol consumption to forestall negative judgment/avoid consequences or he was unaware of
how much alcohol he actually consumed.” Id. at 50.
The Psychologist wrote that the Individual acknowledged that his alcohol use had caused him a
problem once at work, but he denied “that his pattern of use was problematic or excessive.” Tr. at
50. She wrote that the Individual “reported experiencing personal and emotional distress as a result
of the ‘stigma’ of being ‘labeled as an alcohol abuser’” due to the work-related incident. Id. She
wrote that despite his previous diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, the Individual denied having a
problem with alcohol. Id. The Psychologist wrote that “while [the Individual] stated that he made
a mistake with respect to the [work-related] incident, he believes the mistake he made was failing
to eat when drinking the night before the alcohol test rather than his choice to drink to excess the
night before work.” Id. She noted that, using standard metabolic calculations, the Individual would
have had a BAC of 0.0 g/210L on his February 2024 alcohol test if he had consumed the amount
of alcohol he reported drinking the night before. Id. at 47. She also cited to two peer-reviewed
articles to support an assertion that refraining from eating while drinking alcohol does not raise or
lower BAC. Id.
The Psychologist included in her report the results of the Individual’s PEth test, which had been
interpreted by a medical doctor. Ex. 8 at 48–49. The medical doctor’s interpretation noted that the
Individual’s PEth level of 338 ng/mL was higher than the average indicator of “Heavy
Consumption” (200 ng/mL) and “the threshold to identify alcohol dependent persons who may
need detox” (253 ng/mL). Id.
The Psychologist noted that the Individual’s nearly daily consumption of alcohol during a time
when he knew he was under scrutiny for drinking suggested that alcohol was a problem for him.
Ex. 8 at 50. She wrote “[t]his failure to control his alcohol use is either due to having no intention
of changing his pattern of drinking because he does not want to or does not believe he needs to
and is paying lip service to avoid facing consequences.” Id. Alternatively, she wrote, the Individual
5 There was no included explanation of how the Individual could avoid drinking on worknights while also “drinking
more when he is not working the following day compared with the amount he drinks otherwise.” Ex. 8 at 49.
6
may “genuinely want[] to control his drinking but cannot due to the nature of addiction.” Id. Under
any of these scenarios, the Psychologist opined, the Individual’s alcohol use, inconsistent
reporting, and minimization of his alcohol problem were all causes for concern. Id.
The Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder, severe, stating that he met
the following diagnostic criteria (numbered according to the order listed in the DSM-5-TR):
1) Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was intended;
3) A great deal of time is spent in activities necessary to obtain alcohol, use alcohol, or
recover from its effects;
4) Craving or a strong desire or urge to use alcohol;
6) Continued alcohol use despite having persistent or recurrent social or interpersonal
problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol;
9) Alcohol use is continued despite knowledge of having persistent or recurrent physical
or psychological problems that is likely to have been caused or exacerbated by alcohol;
10) Tolerance.
Ex. 8 at 51. The Psychologist added that the Individual also exhibited a pattern of repeated binge
drinking as defined by the NIAAA. Id. She opined that the Individual did not have a favorable
prognosis and had not presented adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation because he was
still consuming alcohol. Id. at 53. She recommended, for the Individual to present evidence of
rehabilitation, he should:
• Abstain from alcohol for twelve months, supported by random breathalyzers (if he returned
to work) and PEth tests every one to two months over that period to provide documentation
of his abstinence;
• Participate in at least three AA meetings weekly with documentation of attendance and
work the Twelve Steps with a sponsor (or participate in a similar recovery support group);
and
• Participate in an intensive outpatient program (IOP) or inpatient program for Alcohol Use
Disorder, possibly with physiological dependence as determined during an intake
interview.
Id.
At the hearing, the Individual’s spouse testified that on the night before the Individual’s positive
breathalyzer test at work, they had people at their house to watch the Super Bowl and the Individual
had “a few drinks.” Tr. at 15. She testified that the Individual had not consumed alcohol since
February or March 2025 and that the Individual had not had a pattern of drinking alcohol at any
point in his life. Id. at 16. She clarified that they had consumed alcohol from time to time
7
throughout their over 20 years of marriage, but never on a daily basis. Id. at 20–21. She further
testified that the Individual had gone through a stressful time in January 2025 “just because of the
stress of work and everything that work was putting him through. Even though he had already did
what he was supposed to do the year before for the one time out of 19 years of working there that
he blew hot.” Id. at 15–16. The spouse testified that she had dealt with alcoholics, which she
described as a person who drank a liter of liquor or two twelve-packs of beer every day, and stated
that she believed he would not have been accepted by a treatment facility because he did not have
an alcohol problem. Id. at 24. However, she testified that the Individual had not tried to enter an
IOP or been evaluated for suitability for a substance abuse program. Id. at 24–25. She testified that
the Individual had completed an online training and twelve or fifteen “AA classes” as mandated
by his employer for HRP reinstatement, identifying those actions as “steps . . . taken to address
[the Individual’s] past alcohol issues.” Id. at 16. She testified that since his evaluation by the
Psychologist, he had not attended any AA meetings or meetings of similar types of groups. Id. at
28–29. The Individual’s spouse opined that the Psychologist could not have known the
Individual’s character because she only talked to him for two hours and stated that it was “pitiful”
that he was being judged on her assessment of him. Id. at 32.
The Individual’s friend had known him for about a decade, and their families frequently spent time
together, at least weekly. Tr. at 36. She testified that the Individual had stopped drinking alcohol
in March or April of 2025. Id. at 38. She testified that the Individual consumed alcohol on the day
he was sent home from work in March or April 20256 and decided shortly afterward that he would
stop drinking. Id. at 38–39. The friend testified that she and the Individual’s spouse would
sometimes have a beer together and the Individual would be present on those occasions but would
not drink. Id. at 48–49. She testified that the Individual did not seem bothered by seeing others’
alcohol use. Id. at 49. She testified that the Individual would drink water, hydration drinks, or non-
alcoholic beer when others were consuming alcohol. Id. at 50. The friend described the Individual
as reliable and trustworthy, and she believed he exercised sound judgment in his personal and
professional life. Id. at 40.
The Individual’s colleague had been the Individual’s partner at work for nineteen years and had
worked at the same DOE site for twenty-five years. Tr. at 59. They had limited contact outside of
work, except during hunting season when they saw each other about every other day. Id. at 65. He
had last seen the Individual consume alcohol about two years earlier when the Individual helped
him build a privacy fence at his home. Id. He testified that he trusted the Individual with his life
and had never had concerns about the Individual’s alcohol use. Id. at 65–66. He testified that every
year, about three or four out of 500–600 employees in the Individual’s position have a positive
alcohol test at work. Id. at 70–71.
The Individual opined that the counselor who evaluated him for the HRP did not properly conduct
the tests he administered as part of his evaluation. Tr. at 81–82. The Individual questioned the
qualifications of the site psychologist who raised the security concern about his Alcohol Use
Disorder in October 2024, stating that his experience was in adolescent psychology. Id. at 87.
However, because the Individual is not an expert in the fields of counseling, substance abuse,
psychology, or psychiatry, his opinion on these matters is of limited value. Id. at 88. Moreover,
the LSO did not rely on the opinions of the counselor and the site psychologist in the SSC, and
6 On March 4, 2025, the Individual was sent home from work due to suspension of his security clearance. Tr. at 93.
8
thus the question of their methods and qualifications has limited relevance to the allegations giving
rise to the security concerns in this case.
The Individual submitted into evidence the results of three tests, taken in September, October, and
November of 2025, measuring how the body’s antibodies respond to PEth; this is an immune
system test for Antiphospholipid Syndrome. Tr. at 111; Ex. A; Phosphatidylethanolamine
Antibodies (IgG, IgM, IgA), Quest Diagnostics (last accessed December 24, 2025), available at
https://testdirectory.questdiagnostics.com/test/test-detail/12023/phosphatidylethanolamine-
antibodies-igg-igm-iga?cc=MASTER. This test is not the PEth test recommended by the
Psychologist, listed as “PHOSPHATIDYLETHANOL SCRN/CONF, WB
PHOSPHATIDYLETHANOL (PEth)” on the laboratory report provided to the Individual with the
Psychologist’s report. Ex. 8 at 61. The Individual testified that he thought he was taking the correct
tests when they were administered but later realized he took the wrong ones. Tr. at 111.
The Individual testified that in January 2025 he drank heavily (“I [said in my evaluation] I was
drinking 90 percent of the days out of January.”) because he had been notified that his alcohol use
was being investigated in the context of his security clearance eligibility, and he was worried that
he would not be able to keep his job. Tr. at 92. At this time, the Individual was working day shifts
at the DOE site. Id. at 93. The Individual testified that he reduced his drinking toward the end of
February 2025 and completely quit toward the end of March 2025. Id. When asked if he intended
to use alcohol ninety percent of the days in January, he responded, “Yes, every time I drank. In—
March 4th,7 I didn’t leave the bed. I was in the bedroom for five days. I was so depressed, I was
crying every time I left the bedroom.” Id. at 99. The Individual added, “I wouldn’t be depressed if
I wasn’t getting sent home for no—I mean for no understanding reason.” Id. at 100. He testified
that, since that time, he has not engaged in substance abuse treatment. Id. at 102. He testified that
he drank alcohol because “I enjoy the break down of bourbon. I enjoy the vanilla taste, the caramel,
the toastiness.” Id. at 102–03. Moments later, he testified, “[d]uring those times I was stressed
about what in the world was going on, and had no clue why you were doing it. And I was drinking
because I was depressed.” Id. at 103. He also admitted that this was “absolutely not” a positive
coping habit. Id.
The Individual testified that he did not attend AA meetings after receiving the Psychologist’s
recommendations because he had “been there ten times last time [for HRP]. I’ve heard the steps.
I’ve read the steps, and if I don’t think there—I mean, there’s nothing beyond my God, so I already
know that alcohol is not above me, and I’m not an addict.” Tr. at 114. The Individual testified that
he did not comply with the Psychologist’s recommendations “[b]ecause I’m not an alcoholic. I
don’t have Alcohol Use Disorder, severe. There’s no—there’s no basis on it, there’s—it’s—I don’t
have it, I mean.”8 Id. at 115. When asked what he had done, besides abstaining from alcohol for
7 On March 4, 2025, the Individual was sent home from work due to suspension of his security clearance. Tr. at 93.
8 The Individual did not stipulate to the Psychologist’s credentials as an expert in the field of psychology competent
to diagnose alcohol or substance abuse disorders because, he asserted, she did not have a certification or “advanced
training for Alcohol Use Disorder and screening” beyond the general education included in her Clinical Psychology
PhD curriculum. Tr. at 137, 146–47. However, the Psychologist testified that this training is part of the general
Psychology PhD program and that students in those programs are required to learn about all diagnosable psychological
disorders, including alcohol and substance abuse disorders. Id. at 146–47. She further testified that specialization or
certification is not required for PhD Psychologists to diagnose substance abuse disorders because to earn a PhD in
9
eight months, to show that he would not have future alcohol-related incidents, the Individual
testified, “I really haven’t done anything.” Id. at 121–22. He testified that because there were
people “walking down the sides of the roads completely alcohol dependent,” he should not take
their spot in an IOP or inpatient treatment program, thereby taking their opportunity for recovery.
Id. at 115. He testified that perhaps he did have Alcohol Use Disorder—mild, not severe—but he
believed that he was “just a normal guy with what I thought was normal drinking habits.” Id. at
117. The Individual testified that he intended to resume controlled drinking in the future and
specified, “my future plans are not to abstain.” Id. at 118. He testified that, at that moment, as he
participated in the hearing from his home, he had “probably ten bottles of bourbon sitting right
next to me. I just don’t drink it because I was told not to, so I don’t.” Id. at 122.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual was not clinically rehabilitated or reformed from his
Alcohol Use Disorder, and she gave him a poor prognosis. Tr. at 150. She explained that the
Individual had been given numerous opportunities to acknowledge and be educated on his alcohol
issues, but he had instead demonstrated a pattern of diminishing professional opinions, making his
own decisions about the validity of professional recommendations, engaging with the diagnostic
and treatment process defensively, and eschewing opportunities to mitigate the alcohol concerns.
Id. at 150–51. She added that the Individual had not submitted documentary evidence supporting
his testimony that he had abstained from alcohol since March 2025, and even if the tests he
submitted could support that testimony, they could only show three months of abstinence. Id. at
151. She testified that the Individual was “blatantly rejecting the other recommendations that I’ve
made in order to improve prognosis or confidence that a similar instance wouldn’t happen because
of his alcohol use.” Id. She opined that the Individual had not taken responsibility for, or even
acknowledged the validity of, the LSO’s concerns regarding his alcohol use. Id. She noted that the
Individual testified to his intent to resume drinking in the future and stated that she did not see any
evidence to support a positive prognosis for him. Id.
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
Clinical Psychology, the student is required to have the “ability to assess, diagnose, and treat every disorder in the
DSM[-5-TR].” Id. at 147. The Psychologist’s curriculum vitae was submitted into evidence and showed that the
Psychologist had earned a PhD in Clinical Psychology from an accredited university and had been practicing clinical
psychology for about fifteen years by the date of the hearing. Ex. 9 at 75–77. The Psychologist had also been accepted
as an expert in psychology—competent to diagnose alcohol use disorders—by OHA Administrative Judges on
previous occasions. Tr. at 141. Based on the testimony and evidence provided, I accepted the Psychologist as an expert
in the field of psychology competent to diagnose alcohol or substance abuse disorders. Id. at 149.
10
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
restoring the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
Conditions that may mitigate Guideline G concerns include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under such
unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(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.
As an initial matter, I turn to the dispute over the Individual’s diagnosis. While the Individual
vigorously challenges the Psychologist’s opinion that he meets the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol
Use Disorder, severe, I find the Psychologist’s opinion convincing. Given her credentials and
experience in the field of clinical psychology, I give significant weight to her opinion on this
matter. Furthermore, upon evaluating the Individual’s alcohol use, I agree that it falls within the
criteria specified by the Psychologist. The Individual’s perception of a person with Alcohol Use
Disorder—a person who drinks all day or who is unable to function normally within society due
to alcohol use—is not consistent with the medical criteria for the disorder, so his insistence that he
does not fit his description of a person with Alcohol Use Disorder is not convincing. For the
foregoing reasons, I accept the Psychologist’s diagnosis.
I want to acknowledge that the Individual attempted to provide three months of PEth testing in
accordance with treatment recommendations. While I cannot accept them as proof of abstinence
or as compliance with the Psychologist’s recommendations, the desire to comply has some weight.
That weight is diminished by the fact that the recommendation was for twelve months of testing.
Still, in the whole-person concept, intent and effort matter. This is also the case for the Individual’s
eight months of sobriety. Though it is not corroborated by documentary evidence and is not as
long as the Psychologist recommended, I still take this testimony into consideration in my
Decision. Unfortunately, as the following discussion details, these positive factors are not enough
11
to clear all doubt regarding the Individual’s judgment, trustworthiness, and reliability. None of the
mitigating conditions of Guideline G apply in this case. I address each condition in turn.
Regarding condition (a), the Individual’s initial positive breath test at work was nearly two years
ago, but he continued consuming alcohol in problematic ways through the spring of 2025. He
admitted to drinking almost every day in January 2025 and drinking to cope with depression in
March 2025. These behaviors were neither long ago nor infrequent. Given the ups and downs of
life, it is likely that the Individual will face stress and depression in the future, and his stated intent
to resume alcohol consumption makes it not unlikely that he will drink problematically in the
future. His continued alcohol consumption while being scrutinized for his alcohol use, his later
refusal to engage with treatment activities despite knowing his job was at risk, his intent to return
to alcohol use in the future, and the absence of any recovery-related therapy or treatment since
learning that his security clearance had been suspended all ensure that doubt remains about his
judgment in particular. I cannot find that condition (a) applies.
Regarding condition (b), the Individual did not fully acknowledge his “pattern of maladaptive
alcohol use,” stating that he drinks because he likes the taste of bourbon and in the next breath
admitting that he drank due to depression and stress that arose from not knowing why DOE was
“doing” this to him. He acknowledged that he might have an Alcohol Use Disorder, albeit a mild
one, but also represented that he was a “normal guy” with “normal drinking habits.” He was
adamant that he was not an alcoholic and did not need treatment. And so, he did not take steps to
overcome his alcohol problem beyond abstaining for about eight months. Even that period of
abstinence, if it were corroborated, would not be enough time to establish a pattern of abstinence
in accordance with treatment recommendations because the Psychologist recommended twelve
months of abstinence. I cannot find that condition (b) applies.
Regarding condition (c), the Individual is not involved in counseling or treatment for his Alcohol
Use Disorder, precluding the application of this condition. Similarly, the Individual has not
completed a treatment program or, as previously discussed, demonstrated a clear and modified
pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, so condition (d) also does
not apply.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has not succeeded in fully resolving
those concerns. Therefore, I cannot conclude that restoring DOE access authorization to the
Individual “will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the
national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should not restore access
authorization to the Individual.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals