PSH-25-0161

*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: July 8, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0161
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 30, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Diane L. Miles, 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.
(June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude that the Individual’s access authorization
should not be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position that requires that he hold a security
clearance. In August 2024, in connection with the Individual’s request for access authorization,
the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP). Exhibit (Ex.)
8.2 In the QNSP, the Individual reported that from May 2024 to August 2024, he received
counseling or treatment related to his use of alcohol. Id. at 116.
Because of the security concerns raised by the Individual’s alcohol treatment, the Local Security
Office (LSO) requested that the Individual undergo an evaluation by a DOE-contractor
psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who, in March 2025, conducted a clinical interview of the
Individual and issued a report (the Report) of his findings. Ex. 5. On March 17, 2025, as part of
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The DOE’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 146-page PDF workbook. Many of the exhibits are
marked with page numbering that is inconsistent with their location in the combined workbook. This Decision will
cite to the DOE’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit and page number within the combined workbook regardless of
any internal pagination.
2
the evaluation, the Individual underwent alcohol testing, in the form of a Phosphatidylethanol
(PEth) test,3 the result of which was positive at a level of 303 ng/mL. Id. at 41. The DOE
Psychologist concluded that, based upon a medical doctor’s interpretation of the Individual’s
March 17, 2025, PEth test result, the Individual was “drinking heavily.” Id. at 31. Based on his
evaluation of the Individual, and the results of the Individual’s PEth test, the DOE Psychologist
opined that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria in the Diagnostic and Statistical
Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision (DSM-5-TR) for a diagnosis of Alcohol
Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at
33.
On May 28, 2025, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold a security
clearance. Ex. 1 at 6–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification
Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline
G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual requested an administrative hearing, and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s
request to the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). Ex. 2. The Director of OHA appointed me
as the Administrative Judge in this matter. On January 13, 2026, I convened a hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g). During the hearing, I took testimony from five witnesses: the
Individual, the Individual’s Supervisor, the Individual’s Colleague, the Individual’s Therapist, and
the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0161 (Tr.). Counsel for
the DOE submitted eight exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 8. The Individual submitted 11
exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through K.4
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
Under Guideline G, “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security
concern under Guideline G include a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health
professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist, or licensed clinical social worker)
of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(d). In invoking Guideline G, the LSO cited the DOE
Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for a
diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, without evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. 5
III. Regulatory Standards
3 The Report indicates that “PEth accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell membrane. The PEth level
reflects the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28–30 days as red blood cells degrade and
enzymatic action removes PEth.” Ex. 5 at 39. A PEth level “greater than 200 ng/mL corresponds to heavy drinking
(at least 4 drinks/day several days/week).” Id. at 30, 39.
4 The Individual’s exhibits included a copy of his college degree, a copy of his resume, and eight character reference
letters. Ex. H; Ex. I; Ex. J. Although these exhibits are a part of the record, they will not be specifically referenced in
this Decision because they do not include information relevant to the security concerns in this case.
5 The LSO also cited the results of the Individual’s March 2025 PEth test, which was positive at a level of 303 ng/mL.
Ex. 1 at 5. While the Individual’s March 17, 2025, PEth test result informed the DOE Psychologist’s opinion, it does
not present a security concern in and of itself.
3
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting their eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
During the March 2025 psychological evaluation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that
during the previous ten years, his alcohol consumption had steadily increased, along with his
tolerance for alcohol. Ex. 5 at 26. As of August 2024, he typically consumed alcohol to
intoxication, nightly. Id. His routine was to consume “5–6 craft beers on weeknights and 10 craft
beers on Saturdays.” Id. Two days before the evaluation, the Individual drank ten beers, from 12:00
p.m. to 7:00 p.m. Id. He admitted that he had an alcohol problem and that he wanted to stop
drinking. Id. The Individual abstained from alcohol two years prior to the psychological
evaluation, in 2023, as an experiment and without the use of an alcohol treatment program, but he
was only able to stop drinking for ten days. Id.; Tr. at 69. The Individual reported that he drank
alcohol as a “time-filler” and as a part of his social activities. Ex. 5 at 26.
The Individual also reported that since 2017, he has seen his Therapist, to treat issues related to
anxiety and Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (OCD). Ex. 5 at 25. Since May 2024, he has had 15
sessions with the Therapist. Ex. 5 at 25; Ex. C. The DOE Psychologist contacted the Individual’s
Therapist and learned that the Therapist uses cognitive behavioral therapy to address the
Individual’s anxiety and OCD, and that the Individual uses alcohol to cope with his anxiety. Ex. 5
at 28. The Therapist also reported that she diagnosed the Individual with “Alcohol Intoxication.”
Id.6
The DOE Psychologist found that the Individual’s reporting of his alcohol consumption was
consistent with his March 17, 2025, PEth test result, and that the Individual was “drinking heavily.”
Ex. 5 at 31. The DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Moderate, without
6 Although the Individual’s Therapist referred to the Individual’s diagnosis as “Alcohol Intoxication” in March 2025,
the Therapist referred to his diagnosis as “Alcohol Abuse” during the hearing. Tr. at 15–16.
4
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 33. To show adequate evidence of
rehabilitation from his AUD, Moderate, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual
participate in an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), for 12 to 16 weeks. Id. After completing an
IOP, the Individual was advised to attend the IOP’s “weekly aftercare meetings for nine (9)
months,” and undergo monthly PEth testing. Id. If the Individual chose not to participate in an
IOP, the Individual could demonstrate evidence of reformation from his AUD, Moderate, by
actively participating in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) for 18 months, which must include
“documented attendance of four meetings a week, meeting with a sponsor, and showing evidence
of working the 12–Step program.” Id. The Individual could also show evidence of reformation
from his AUD, Moderate, by abstaining from alcohol for 24 months, supported by monthly PEth
testing. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual’s Supervisor and Colleague testified that they have known the
Individual since 2024 and that they interact with the Individual almost daily. Tr. at 77, 86. They
were both aware of the DOE’s concerns about the Individual’s alcohol consumption, but neither
of them had ever observed behavior in the workplace that suggested the Individual was abusing
alcohol. Id. at 77–78, 86, 90. The Supervisor did not have any concerns about the Individual’s
judgment. Id. at 86. The Individual’s Supervisor and Colleague knew the Individual sought
treatment related to his use of alcohol, but neither of them knew how much alcohol the Individual
was consuming. Id. at 80, 89–90.
The Individual’s Therapist testified she treats the Individual for his OCD, and for his anxiety, not
his alcohol use. Tr. at 14. However, she believed the Individual was drinking alcohol to the point
where it was not healthy for him. Id. at 15. In July 2025, she diagnosed the Individual with
“Alcohol Abuse” and recommended that he find a substance abuse counselor to help him with his
alcohol consumption. Tr. at 15–16, 23; Ex. B. Since July 2025, the Individual has had
psychotherapy sessions with the Therapist, one to two times a week. Tr. at 22–24; Ex. B; Ex. C.
The Therapist explained that the Individual had progressed in his sense of awareness, and his
willingness to take steps to improve his health, such as running. Tr. at 29–30. She explained that
the Individual underwent alcohol testing and, since July 2025, he had reported his test results to
her. Id. at 25–26; see infra p. 5, n. 7 (indicating that the tests were PEth tests and listing the results).
Her understanding of the Individual’s future plans regarding alcohol is that he will drink alcohol
in moderation, on special occasions, and not as a regular part of his daily routine. Id. at 26. The
Therapist did discuss abstaining from alcohol with the Individual, but the Individual expressed to
her that if he cannot drink alcohol without it causing adverse consequences in his life, then he
would not drink. Id. at 26–27. She believed that the Individual’s Alcohol Abuse was in remission
because he was not experiencing “a tolerance issue,” he was not experiencing symptoms of alcohol
withdrawal, and he was not engaging in alcohol-related behaviors that impaired the quality of his
life. Id. at 19, 23–25.
The Individual testified that he did not believe his alcohol consumption was a problem, because it
never had a negative impact on his work performance, his finances, and it never led to an
interaction with law enforcement. Tr. at 41–42, 65–66, 72. During a typical weeknight, the
Individual would go to a local bar and have a few alcoholic drinks with water and food, over
several hours. Id. at 40. He explained that he drank alcohol to relax and socialize and that he never
believed he was unable to stop drinking. Id. at 41. After reading the DOE Psychologist’s Report,
he believed the DOE Psychologist wanted him to reduce the amount of alcohol he was consuming,
rather than abstain from alcohol. Id. at 45, 65. Although he reported to the DOE Psychologist,
5
during his evaluation, that he wanted to stop drinking alcohol, he claimed that what he meant to
tell the DOE Psychologist was that he wanted to reduce his alcohol consumption and still socialize.
Id. at 54–55. Since June 2025, the Individual testified that he had consumed “less than five beers
a week” to address the DOE’s concerns. Id. at 42–43, 51. He expressed a willingness to abstain
from alcohol, if he was required to do so by the DOE. Id. at 45.
Since August 2025, the Individual has had counseling sessions with a substance abuse counselor,
every two weeks. Tr. at 44–45, 49, 66–67; Ex. F. A November 2025 letter from the substance
abuse counselor indicates that he diagnosed the Individual with AUD. Ex. E. The Individual
explained that during these sessions, the counselor advises him on how he can limit his alcohol
consumption, they discuss different ways of thinking about alcohol, and they discuss alcohol’s
effects on the body. Tr. at 50, 67. They also discuss how to socialize without going to his local
bars, but the Individual admitted that he still attends bars; though not as often has he used to. Id.
at 67–68. He stated that the counselor recommended that he stop drinking alcohol. Id. at 67, 71.
When he was asked if his sessions included discussions about his triggers to drink alcohol, he
replied that he did not know. Id. at 68. He did not follow the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation
to enroll in an IOP. Id. at 66. In October 2025, the Individual met with a psychiatrist, but he only
did so to obtain a second opinion as to whether he had an AUD, and he did not intend to see the
psychiatrist again. Id. at 53; Ex. G. A record of the Individual’s October 2025 psychiatric
evaluation indicates that he was diagnosed with AUD. Ex. G. The Individual intends to continue
receiving treatment from his Therapist and his substance abuse counselor. Tr. at 45, 60.
As for the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation that the Individual undergo monthly PEth testing,
the Individual submitted the results of seven PEth tests taken between June 2025 and December
2025. Ex. A; Ex. K. The results of all but one test were positive for alcohol. Id.7 The Individual
explained that his PEth test results showed that he had greatly reduced his alcohol consumption
since March 2025. Tr. at 44, 50–51. The last time he consumed alcohol was two days before the
hearing, when he had a few drinks with a neighbor. Id. at 59–60.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing
and reviewing the Individual’s exhibits, the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation from his AUD, Moderate. Tr. at 102. He explained that because the
Individual’s March 17, 2025, PEth test was so high, at 303 ng/mL, to demonstrate rehabilitation
from his AUD, Moderate, he recommended that the Individual attend an IOP for 12 to 16 months,
then attend the IOP’s aftercare program for nine months. Id. at 94–95. To demonstrate reformation,
he recommended that the Individual actively participate in AA for 18 months. Id. No matter which
form of treatment the Individual chose, the DOE Psychologist explained that the Individual
“needed to show evidence of abstinence,” through monthly PEth testing, and that such PEth testing
needed to be negative. Id. at 95, 112–13.
The DOE Psychologist also explained that although the Individual continued to see his Therapist,
which was a positive sign, he did not enroll in an IOP or AA, and therefore, he did not follow the
DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations. Tr. at 99. Though the Individual had seen a
7 The Individual’s June 30, 2025, PEth test was positive at a level of 36 ng/mL; the July 31, 2025, PEth test was
positive at a level of 65 ng/mL; the August 14, 2025, PEth test was positive at a level of 20 ng/mL; the September 19,
2025, PEth test was positive at a level of 33 ng/mL; the October 31, 2025, PEth test was positive at a level of 27
ng/mL; the November 11, 2025, PEth test was negative; and the December 30, 2025, PEth test was positive at a level
of 31 ng/mL. Ex. A; Ex. K
6
substance abuse counselor since August 2025, the DOE Psychologist could not conclude that the
Individual’s sessions with his substance abuse counselor were equivalent to the AA he had
recommended, because the Individual was not aware of his triggers to drink alcohol and he did not
seem to know much about alcohol use in general. Id. at 105. He also did not think it was wise for
the Individual to still attend bars if he wanted to decrease his alcohol consumption, because it could
be difficult for him to avoid drinking in an atmosphere where everyone is drinking alcohol around
him. Id. at 99–100. As for a prognosis, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s
prognosis was poor. Id. at 101. He explained that the Individual’s March 2025 PEth test result
indicated that he was a heavy drinker, heavy drinkers have a “60 to 70 percent chance of relapsing,”
and that, considering the Individual’s lack of responsiveness to treatment and continued regular
alcohol consumption in environments such as bars, he was “very cautious” about the Individual’s
prognosis. Id.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
(a) So much time has passed, or the behavior was so infrequent, or it happened under
such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the
individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment;
(b) The individual acknowledges his or her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provides evidence of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated
a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress in a
treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified
consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
As to factor (a), the Individual admitted that his alcohol consumption had increased over the past
ten years, and that as of August 2024, he was consuming five to six beers a weeknight, and ten
beers on Saturdays. He also admitted that two days before his psychological evaluation, he
consumed ten beers between 12:00 p.m. and 7:00 p.m. which was reflected in his March 2025
PEth test result. Therefore, his pattern of alcohol consumption was heavy and frequent.
Furthermore, there is no evidence that the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption occurred
under unusual circumstances because he admitted that he drank alcohol to relax and socialize with
others.
Furthermore, the Individual knew that the DOE had concerns about his alcohol consumption, and
the DOE Psychologist, his Therapist, his substance abuse counselor, and a psychiatrist, have
7
diagnosed him with some form of an alcohol disorder. Despite this knowledge, the Individual
chose to disregard the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations, and he continues to drink
alcohol. The Individual expressed that he prefers to continue consuming alcohol, rather than
abstain from doing so, and that he consumed alcohol as recently as two days before the hearing.
Finally, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual was not yet rehabilitated or reformed
from his AUD, Moderate and that his prognosis was poor. There is no evidence upon which I can
conclude that the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption is unlikely to recur, and his
alcohol consumption continues to cast doubt on his current reliability, trustworthiness, and
judgment. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns related to
his alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(a) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
As to factor (b), the Individual testified that he did not believe that his alcohol consumption was a
problem, because it never had a negative impact on his work performance, his finances, and it
never led to an interaction with law enforcement. Furthermore, he has not enrolled in AA or an
IOP to address his heavy alcohol consumption, as recommended by the DOE Psychologist.
Although the Individual received some treatment, from his Therapist, his Therapist testified that
her treatment was focused on the Individual’s OCD, and not his alcohol use. The Individual was
also seeing a substance abuse counselor, but the Individual has not followed that counselor’s
recommendation, that he abstain from alcohol, and I concur with the concerns of the DOE
Psychologist, who could not determine how effective the Individual’s therapy sessions have been
at addressing his alcohol consumption, when compared to an IOP and AA, because he did not
believe he has a problem with alcohol and he continues to drink.
Finally, the DOE Psychologist gave the Individual three ways that he could establish rehabilitation
or reformation from his AUD, Moderate, and the DOE Psychologist testified that given his high
March 2025 PEth test result, resolving his AUD included abstaining from alcohol. That the
Individual had a different interpretation of the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations in his Report
does not change this fact. At the hearing, the Individual admitted that his intent, during his
evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, and since then, was to decrease his alcohol consumption,
and that he would not consider abstaining from alcohol unless he believed the DOE required that
he do so. The Individual’s PEth test results, from June 2025 to December 2025, also show that he
continues to drink and that he has not established a clear and established pattern abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual
was not yet rehabilitated or reformed from his AUD, Moderate, and that his prognosis was poor.
Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns related to his alcohol
consumption under ¶ 23(b) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
As to factors (c) and (d), as explained above, the Individual has had therapy sessions with his
Therapist and a substance abuse counselor, but he is not making satisfactory progress with this
treatment because he has not acknowledged that he had a problem with alcohol and he continues
to drink. He also chose not to enroll in an IOP or AA, as recommended by the DOE Psychologist,
and he admitted that he continues to drink alcohol, and did so as recently as two days before the
hearing. So, he has not established a pattern of abstinence in accordance with the DOE
Psychologist’s treatment recommendations. Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated
the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(c) or ¶ 23(d) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines.
8
Based on the foregoing analysis, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the concerns raised
by the LSO under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable, in a
comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other evidence
presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that
granting him a security clearance would not endanger the common defense and security and would
be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the Individual’s access
authorization should not be granted. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the
procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane L. Miles
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals