PSH-25-0153

*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 18, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0153
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 19, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Matthew Rotman, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
In October 2003, the Individual was arrested and charged with Underage Possession of Alcohol.
Exhibit (Ex.) 16 at 588.2 In December 2003, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving
While Intoxicated. Id. at 589–90. In August 2004, the Individual was arrested and charged with
Underage Possession of Alcohol. Id. at 590–91. After 2004, the Individual reduced his alcohol use
and successfully avoided any further alcohol-related problems for sixteen years. Id. at 607.
The Individual’s alcohol consumption increased at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, when he
found himself consuming up to twenty shots of vodka daily, as a way of “coping” with his anxiety.
Ex. 8 at 68; Ex. 13 at 255. In November 2021, recognizing that his alcohol use was “a problem,”
the Individual sought treatment at a detox center, where he was diagnosed with Alcohol Use
Disorder (AUD), Severe. Ex. 8 at 68; Ex. 13 at 255. Upon discharge, he engaged the services of a
counselor and a psychiatrist to support his sobriety. Ex. 8 at 71–72. The Individual remained sober
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 DOE 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 DOE.
- 2 -
until July 2022, when he consumed “a couple of beers” with a friend. Id. at 68. Thereafter, he
resumed drinking on the weekends, typically between one and six drinks per sitting, and
occasionally during the week. Id. at 67–68.
On November 2, 2022, the Individual was in an argument with his wife regarding financial issues
when she called the police and he was arrested for Harassment – Strike/Shove/Kick and Domestic
Violence. Ex. 7 at 45; Ex. 6 at 34; Ex. 16 at 535. At the time of arrest, the Individual’s blood
alcohol content (BAC) was measured at .308 g/dL. Ex. 6 at 37. The Individual denied that he
pushed or shoved his wife, claiming that he only touched her with his finger. Ex. 8 at 59–60. The
Individual accepted a plea deal which required him to complete domestic violence education,
eighteen months of probation, and drug and alcohol education. Id. at 60.
After the November 2022 arrest, the Individual acknowledged that his decision to resume drinking
in 2022 “was obviously a mistake in judgement.” Id. at 68. He acknowledged that alcohol had a
significant negative impact on his personal and professional life, he regretted “letting his kids
down” by his behavior, and he expressed that his “use of alcohol as a coping mechanism has nearly
ruined [his] life in more ways than one.” Id. at 69–70. The Individual nonetheless continued to
consume alcohol for two months after the arrest, including a “four-day bender” after Christmas
and drinking to intoxication nightly in early January 2023. Ex. 13 at 154–55. After his last drink
on January 9, 2023, he recommitted to abstinence. Id. The Individual completed a 12-week
substance abuse intensive outpatient program (IOP), where he was diagnosed with AUD, Severe,
and saw a clinical psychologist weekly for two months to address relapse prevention. Ex. 6 at 32–
33; Ex. 8 at 60–61; Ex. 13 at 256.
On April 7, 2023, the Individual was evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychologist (First DOE
Psychologist). Ex. 13. Based on her evaluation, she opined that the Individual met sufficient
criteria under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text
Revision (DSM-5-TR) for a diagnosis of AUD, Severe, in early remission. Id. at 258. She
recommended that to demonstrate rehabilitation or reformation, he should complete the IOP and
aftercare, participate regularly in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or another peer-support program,
undergo monthly PEth tests for a period of twelve months, and abstain from alcohol for the rest of
his life. Id.
The DOE local security office (LSO) began an administrative review proceeding based on security
concerns raised under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and J (Criminal Activity) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines, and the Individual requested a hearing before an Administrative Judge
with DOE’s Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. 9; Ex. 10. At the November 8, 2023,
hearing, the Individual testified that nothing had been “more detrimental to [his] life” than alcohol,
and he wanted “nothing to do with it” going forward. Ex. 9 at 161–62. He confirmed that he would
remain “100 percent abstinent from alcohol.” Id. at 162. The First DOE Psychologist testified that
the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation from his AUD, Severe, and had a good prognosis,
based on his ten months of sobriety and treatment, which included the successful completion of
the IOP, regular attendance in aftercare sessions, and individual counseling and psychiatric
treatment. Id. at 175–76; Ex. 10 at 194. The Administrative Judge, accordingly, determined that
the Individual had resolved the Guideline G and J security concerns and that his clearance should
be restored. Ex. 10 at 195–96.
- 3 -
Two months after his administrative review hearing, in January 2024, the Individual resumed
alcohol consumption, drinking one or two glasses of wine with dinner, once or twice per week.
Ex. 11 at 201. This pattern of consumption continued until November 2024, when he began
experiencing marital problems and his consumption increased to six 50-mL bottles of vodka, three
or four days per week. Id. On December 16, 2024, the Individual went to the emergency room for
alcohol withdrawal seizures, after spending three days drinking and not eating. Id. at 202. The
Individual’s BAC was measured at .240 g/dL, which according to the psychiatrist who interpreted
it, “indicates severe intoxication and tolerance.” Id. at 216. Upon leaving the emergency room, he
was admitted into a detox program for seven days, followed by eight-and-a-half days in residential
treatment. Id. at 206. Thereafter, he found a new individual therapist (Therapist), who specializes
in substance abuse, and returned to the weekly IOP aftercare program. Id. at 202–03. The Therapist
diagnosed him with AUD, Moderate, and opined that the Individual was demonstrating a “stronger
commitment to his recovery” than he had previously. Id. at 203. He recommended between six
and twelve months of therapy. Id.
On February 28, 2025, the Individual was evaluated by another DOE-consultant psychologist
(Second DOE Psychologist). Ex. 11 at 200. As part of the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist
reviewed the Individual’s personnel security file, conducted a two-hour clinical interview, and
requested that the Individual undergo a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test, which detects recent use
of alcohol.3 Id. The Individual’s PEth test returned a negative result. Id. The Individual had
previously undergone a PEth test on of February 21, 2025, which was also negative, and on January
31, 2025, which yielded a result of 60 ng/mL. Id. at 238–39; Ex. G; Ex. H. According to the
psychiatrist who interpreted the results, the PEth of 60 ng/mL “likely reflected his having tapered
(or partly tapered) from alcohol sometime after December 16, 2024.” Ex. 11 at 236.
In his clinical interview, the Individual expressed that he uses alcohol “as a coping mechanism,”
but denied that he had an “alcohol problem.” Id. at 208. The Second DOE Psychologist opined
that the Individual met sufficient criteria under the DSM-5-TR for a diagnosis of AUD, Severe,
and that at the time of the evaluation, the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation or
reformation. Id. at 208–09. In order to demonstrate rehabilitation, she recommended that the
Individual attend another IOP or a structured relapse prevention program, participate in long-term
therapy, undergo PEth tests every four to six weeks, and “abstain[] from alcohol for his lifetime.”
Id. at 209–10.
On May 19, 2025, the LSO issued the Individual a letter in which it notified him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. Ex. 1 at 8–10. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G (Alcohol
Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 6–7.
3 “Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) is a whole blood alcohol biomarker. It is detectable for up to four weeks after consuming
alcohol.” American Family Physician, Phosphatidylethanol Test for Identifying Harmful Alcohol Consumption,
available at https://www.aafp.org/afp/2023/0700/diagnostic-tests-phosphatidylethanol-test-alcohol-consumption.
“PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 11 at
214.
- 4 -
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2 at 12. The OHA Director appointed me as the Administrative Judge in
this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO submitted sixteen
exhibits (Ex. 1–16). The Individual submitted twelve exhibits (Ex. A–L). At the hearing, the
Individual testified on his own behalf. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0153 (Tr.)
at 10–41. The LSO offered the testimony of the Second DOE Psychologist. Id. at 43–53.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G as the basis for its determination that the Individual was ineligible 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. Conditions that
could raise a security concern under Guideline G include “alcohol-related incidents away from
work, such as driving while under the influence, . . . child or spouse abuse, . . . or other incidents
of concern”; “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder”; “diagnosis by a duly
qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder”; “the failure to follow
treatment advice once diagnosed”; and “alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with
treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder . . . .” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c)–(f).
In this case, according to the LSO, the Guideline G concerns were raised by:
• the conclusions of the First and Second DOE Psychologists that the Individual met
sufficient DSM-5-TR criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Severe;
• the Individual’s resumption of alcohol consumption in January 2024, at a rate of six 50-
mL bottles of vodka three to four days per week, after assuring DOE that he would abstain;
• the Individual’s admission to the emergency room on December 16, 2024, for alcohol
withdrawal seizures;
• the Individual’s November 2, 2022, arrest for Harassment – Strike/Shove/Kick and
Domestic Violence while intoxicated with a BAC of .308 g/dL;
• the Individual’s arrest for Underage Possession of Alcohol in October 2003 and August
2004; and
• the Individual’s arrest for DWI in December 2003.
Ex. 1 at 6–7. 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 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
- 5 -
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. HEARING TESTIMONY
The Individual testified that, after his security clearance was restored in December 2023, he
discontinued all alcohol-related treatment. Tr. at 11–12. In January 2024, he resumed alcohol
consumption. Id. at 12. When asked to explain why he did so, the Individual responded, “I don’t
have a good reason. I just did.” Id. at 13. At first, the Individual was consuming wine with dinner,
but by March 2024, he was drinking one or two 50-mL bottles of vodka “on occasion” after his
kids went to sleep. Id. at 14–15. Around Thanksgiving, as stress in his marriage increased, he
began to consume six 50-mL bottles at a time. Id. at 16. The Individual failed to rely on his support
system and instead used alcohol to cope with his marital stress. Id. at 19. On Friday, December 13,
2024, the Individual called his neighbor, a psychologist, for support. Id. at 18. The neighbor
recommended that he go to the hospital. Id. The Individual then called his mother, who made
arrangements to travel by airplane to see him, and on Monday, after she arrived, he went to the
emergency room. Id. at 21. Over the three days before going to the hospital, the Individual “was
drinking at least six [50-mL bottles of vodka] a night.” Id. at 21.
In January 2025, the Individual resumed weekly attendance at the IOP aftercare program. Id. at
24–25; Ex. F (October 2025 letter from IOP). In February 2025, he began weekly counseling
sessions with the Therapist. Ex. E (undated letter from the Therapist stating that they discuss how
to maintain sobriety, how to navigate challenges at work, and how to improve as a husband and a
father); see also Tr. at 36 (Individual testifying, “He’s probably the first therapist that I’ve enjoyed
talking to”). The Individual underwent additional PEth tests on April 4 and May 8, 2025, both of
which yielded negative results. Ex. I; Ex. J. By June 2025, he made the decision to discontinue his
participation in aftercare and reduce his therapy sessions to biweekly, because he “was burnt out
on therapy.” Tr. at 25; see also id. at 29 (testifying that the biweekly sessions continued up through
the date of the hearing). He also declined to undergo any additional PEth tests for the next nine
months, before undergoing one final PEth test in March 2026. Id. at 29–30; Ex. L (negative result
of March 9, 2026 test). When he received the evaluative report from the Second DOE Psychologist
in June 2025, the Individual knew he “wasn’t going to be able to meet the recommendations . . . .”
Tr. at 26. He was not interested in attending another IOP, because it was expensive and would
require too much time away from his family. Id. at 27. As for why he did not participate in a
structured relapse prevention program, the Individual did not believe it would be worth the time
and effort. Id. at 28. “Honest – I didn’t think that I was going to get my security clearance back
after I read that report,” he stated. Id.
- 6 -
Recently, the Individual testified, his relationship with his wife has improved. Id. He bought her a
motorcycle, and they have “bond[ed]” by riding together every day. Id. at 19–20. According to the
Individual, he remained abstinent for all of 2025. Id. at 30. Then, on January 25, 2026, he was at
a bar by himself watching football and made the decision to drink one beer. Id. at 30. “I was
enjoying myself and wanted a beer,” he testified. “So I ordered a beer, and that was that.” Id. at
32. The Individual did not inform the Therapist that he consumed alcohol on this date. Id. at 36.
He did not consume alcohol again for the next two months, up through date of the hearing. Id. at
30; Ex. L. As of the hearing, his goal continued to be “100 percent abstinence from alcohol.” Tr.
at 31. Nonetheless, he does not have a relapse prevention plan. Id. at 31, 34–36. “I’m just living
life,” he explained. “I’m extremely busy. . . . I do a lot of parenting duties. Not exactly a game
plan of mine to show up drunk to school taking my kids.” Id. at 31. When asked if he believes he
has a problematic relationship with alcohol, the Individual responded, “At certain times in the past.
Yes.” Id. at 34.
The DOE Psychologist credited the Individual for his attendance in the IOP aftercare program for
six months in early 2025, and was encouraged that the Individual has a “great relationship” with
the Therapist. Id. at 45–47. Nonetheless, because the Individual had discontinued aftercare in June
2025 and had not participated in another IOP or a structured relapse prevention program, the
Individual had fallen short of meeting her recommendations to demonstrate rehabilitation from his
AUD. Id. at 46–47. Further, the DOE Psychologist was troubled that the Individual had not fully
acknowledged the extent of his alcohol problem, particularly in light of its impact on his family,
his career, and his physical health. Id. at 49, 52. She was also troubled that the Individual had not
discussed his January 2026 relapse with his Therapist. Id. at 50. As of the hearing, the DOE
Psychologist opined, the Individual had not demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation from his
AUD, and his prognosis was “guarded” or “fair.” Id. at 51–52.
V. ANALYSIS
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast
doubt on the individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or
abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress
in a treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.
- 7 -
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
Regarding the condition set forth at paragraph (a), the Individual’s problematic consumption of
alcohol began in 2020. Since that time, the Individual has faced trouble with the law, trouble with
his family, trouble with his job, and trouble with his health, all as a result of his alcohol
consumption. On two separate occasions – in November 2021 and in January 2023 – he made a
commitment to abstinence, only to find himself once again abusing alcohol after extended periods
of sobriety. What is more, the Individual made a promise to DOE – including in sworn testimony
before an OHA Administrative Judge in November 2023 – that he would not resume alcohol
consumption, only to promptly resume regular alcohol consumption for no “good reason.” In light
of this history, the lapse of fourteen months since most recent period of alcohol abuse, which ended
around December 2024 or January 2025, does not reassure me that it is unlikely to recur. Nor does
the infrequency of the behavior. The Individual maintains that his problematic alcohol use occurs
only during periods when he faces stress – in particular marital stress – but as the Individual
remains married to his spouse, I cannot rule out the possibility that such circumstances will not
arise again. Accordingly, I cannot find the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G concerns
pursuant to the conditions set forth at paragraphs (a).
Regarding the conditions set forth at paragraphs (b) and (d), the Individual successfully completed
an IOP and required aftercare in 2023, only to relapse less than one year later. After this most
recent relapse, the Individual has taken some further actions to overcome his problem. He
reenrolled in the IOP aftercare program for six months, and he found a Therapist who has treated
him for more than one year. Yet, he withheld from the Therapist the fact that he consumed alcohol
in January 2026, which raises questions about the openness of their communication and the
efficacy of his treatment. The Individual also declined to participate in a structured relapse
prevention program as recommended, and he has not, by his own admission, developed a relapse
prevention plan. The Individual fails to acknowledge his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
dismissing it as a “past” problem, rather than one that poses a real and current risk of recurrence.
Finally, the Individual has not established a pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Although he claims his current period of abstinence began around December
2024, the evidence of alcohol testing in the record does not cover the nine-month period spanning
from May 2025 through February 2026, during which time he admittedly consumed one beer
simply because he “wanted” to. Given the foregoing, the Second DOE Psychologist was unable to
make a positive prognosis for the Individual’s recovery. The Individual has not mitigated the
Guideline G concerns pursuant to the conditions set forth at paragraphs (b) or (d).
The Individual has not satisfied the mitigating conditions of paragraph (c), because he has a history
of relapse after treatment. In light of the foregoing, I find the Individual has failed to resolve the
concerns raised by the LSO under Guideline G.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
- 8 -
sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I
find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns under Guideline G. Accordingly, I have determined
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be appealed
in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Matthew Rotman
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals