PSH-25-0170

*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 18, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0170
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 8, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Erin C. Weinstock, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an
access authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth
at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual was granted access authorization in connection to his employment with a DOE
contractor. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 5.2 On July 30, 2024, the Individual completed a Personnel Security
Information Report (PSIR) in which he disclosed that on July 29, 2024, his attorney informed him
that he was being charged with Negligent Discharge of a Deadly Weapon (NDDW) in relation to
an incident in February 2024, when he accidentally shot himself in the thigh while under the
influence of alcohol. Ex. 7 at 25. As a result of the Individual’s disclosure, the Local Security
Office (LSO) issued the Individual a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual completed
on September 6, 2024. Ex. 9. The LSO asked him to complete a second LOI (second LOI) on
September 16, 2024. Ex. 8. After receipt of his responses, the LSO requested that the Individual
undergo a psychiatric evaluation in October 2024, by a DOE-consultant Psychiatrist (DOE
Psychiatrist), which resulted in a finding that the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and
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 References to the Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in
the top right corner of each exhibit page.
- 2 -
Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol
Use Disorder (AUD), mild. Ex. 10 at 56.
The LSO subsequently 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 6. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id.
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. The LSO
submitted thirteen exhibits (Ex. 1–13). The Individual submitted fourteen exhibits (Ex. A–N). The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of six additional witnesses.
Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0170 (Tr.). The LSO called the DOE Psychiatrist to
testify. Id.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline G, under which the LSO raised the security concerns, relates to security risks arising
from excessive alcohol consumption. “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: “alcohol-related incidents away from work” and “diagnosis
. . . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d). In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the
DOE Psychiatrist’s November 2024 diagnosis that the Individual suffered from AUD, mild. Ex. 1
at 5. The LSO also cited the fact that the Individual was charged with NDDW. Id. at 5. The
aforementioned allegations justify the LSO’s invocation 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 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 their eligibility for an access authorization. The
- 3 -
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. at
§ 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
In February 2024, the Individual was in his home office and began to play a game with friends
virtually. Tr. at 94. About thirty minutes before he started playing the game, he made himself a
rum and Dr. Pepper. Id. While playing the game, the Individual consumed two rum and Dr. Pepper
drinks and began to drink one more. Id. At this point, the Individual became bored with the game
and decided to practice drawing the pistol that he had recently purchased. Id. While practicing with
the pistol, he realized that he should not be using it while distracted by his game, so he decided to
disassemble it to prevent him from being tempted to use it further during the game. Id. While
disassembling the gun, the Individual forgot to check the chamber for ammunition and accidentally
shot himself in the leg when he went to complete the final steps of disassembly. Id.
The Individual ran into his bedroom and told his wife that he had shot himself. Ex. 7 at 27. He
asked his wife to drive him to the hospital, but his wife suggested that it would be a better idea to
call 911. Id. The Individual’s wife called 911, and the Individual was transported to the hospital.
Id. While the Individual was being transported to the hospital, the police officers who had arrived
with the ambulance examined the room where the incident occurred. Id. In the Individual’s office,
the police officers observed the Individual’s pistol, blood, and a glass filled with ice and some kind
of drink. Id. The police officers asked the Individual’s wife what was in the glass, and she informed
them that it was alcohol. Id.
In April 2024, the Individual began individual outpatient psychotherapy. Ex. N (letter from
personal therapist confirming treatment). The Individual has met with his personal therapist
approximately every other week since that time. Id. The Individual began to see the personal
therapist because his wife was concerned about potential issues with what she characterized as
“post traumatic stress disorder” from his accident, but continued the sessions because “it ended up
just being nice to talk with someone.” Ex. 8 at 37.
On July 29, 2024, the police informed the Individual’s attorney that he was being charged with
NDDW. Ex. 7 at 25. He entered a plea of no contest in August 2024 and received a deferred
sentence, paid $17 in court fees, was subject to a ninety-day probation, and was required to
complete a gun safety course. Id. The Individual completed the gun safety course prior to the plea
agreement, in April 2024. Id.; Ex. J.
After reporting this incident to his employer, the Individual was referred to his employer’s Fitness
For Duty (FFD) program. Tr. at 97. FFD required the Individual to remain abstinent from alcohol
while his FFD case was being resolved and to complete an alcohol education course through his
employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP). Id. at 99; Ex. D (certificate showing the
Individual completed the alcohol education course in October 2024). The Individual complied with
all requirements of FFD. Tr. at 47–48 (testimony of the Individual’s supervisor who was regularly
updated on the Individual’s FFD progress).
- 4 -
The Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychiatrist on October 31, 2024. Ex. 8. As part of his
evaluation, the Individual underwent a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test3 in October 2024. Id. at 53.
The PEth test came back negative. Id.
After the Individual completed the evaluation, the DOE Psychiatrist issued a report in which he
concluded that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, mild. Id. at 56. In
order for the Individual to show rehabilitation and reformation, the DOE Psychiatrist stated that
the Individual should: (1) show six months of documented abstinence from alcohol, including
monthly PEth tests; (2) comply with his employer’s FFD requirements; (3) continue meeting with
his personal therapist with an increased focus on substance abuse; and (4) attend Alcoholics
Anonymous or Self-Management and Recovery Training (SMART) Recovery classes at least two
times per week and document his attendance. Id. at 57.
After completing his FFD case, the Individual began to consume alcohol again, but only
occasionally and at a “responsible” level. Tr. at 117. In January 2025, the Individual decided that
it would be best that he not consume alcohol while recovering from a cold. Id. at 115‒16. Shortly
after making this decision, the Individual was informed that his access authorization was being
suspended, and then a few weeks later he got the DOE Psychiatrist’s report. Id. When the
Individual stopped consuming alcohol after his cold, he began to see the physical and mental health
benefits of abstinence as compared to his abstinence while in FFD in 2024, where he felt like he
was being abstinent simply because he was told he had to. Id. at 109–10, 116. Since February
2025, he has gotten monthly PEth tests to document his abstinence. Id. Each of the ten tests that
he underwent came back negative for alcohol consumption. Id.; Ex. B. During this time, the
Individual’s sessions with his personal therapist began to have an increased focus on alcohol and
substance abuse. Tr. at 99.
The Individual completed an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP) for alcohol use in August 2025.
Tr. at 100; Ex. C (certificate of completion from IOP). The IOP was sixteen weeks long, and the
Individual attended the IOP for ten hours each week. Tr. at 22–23, 100. Nine hours each week
were dedicated to group sessions, and the Individual would also attend a one-hour session with a
substance abuse therapist. Id. at 100–01. The IOP uses a “matrix curriculum,” which is a
“multicomponent curriculum that provides evidence-based practices” and “teaches individuals
early recovery skills, relapse prevention, group therapy as well as psychoeducation and self-help.”
Id. at 23. The substance abuse therapist that the Individual worked with in the IOP testified that he
was very successful and worked very hard in the program. Id. at 25–26. She stated that in her
professional opinion as a licensed substance professional and a licensed clinical therapist, she
believes the Individual is at low risk to return to consuming alcohol and that he has an excellent
prognosis. Id. at 27–28.
3 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 8 at
65.
- 5 -
The Individual began attending SMART Recovery4 classes on a weekly basis about one week after
he completed his IOP. Id. at 101; Ex. H. The Individual explained that he found SMART
Recovery’s ideas of maintaining your “emotional behavioral state of mind” and lifestyle balancing
have been very helpful for him in his recovery. Tr. at 107. He described a recent meeting where
they discussed how happiness and self-acceptance were interconnected and how he appreciated
seeing a new perspective on acceptance. Id. The Individual also completed a second EAP course
about alcohol use in September 2025. Id. at 12–13, 101; Ex. E.
The Individual testified that he has no plans to resume consuming alcohol in the future, and he is
“very happy in [his] sobriety.” Tr. at 109. At the beginning of this process, he thinks there was “a
bit of pride” holding him back and making him believe that he could consume alcohol responsibly,
but he has since come to the realization that the benefits he has gained from abstinence are worth
it. Id.
The Individual’s friends and family are very supportive of his decision to no longer consume
alcohol. Id. at 38, 64, 78–79, 104–05. He feels that between his personal therapist, friends he has
made in the EAP classes, and his wife, he has many people he can talk to about stressors or other
triggers. Id. at 105. He plans to continue his personal therapy, SMART Recovery, and relevant
EAP classes in the future, including potentially attending an EAP group class about trauma. Id. at
114.
At the hearing, the Individual explained that about six to eight months after the accident, he got
his gun back from the police. Id. at 118. The gun now stays locked in his closet, and he does not
have a magazine for it. Id.
The Individual’s wife testified that the Individual has committed to not consuming alcohol in the
future. Id. at 76. She explained that he decided to have apple juice rather than an alcoholic beverage
during a “sunset happy hour” that they had attended on a recent vacation and had seemed
comfortable at barbecues and other social events where other people were consuming alcohol
around him. Id. at 77. She also shared that the Individual has been very dedicated to his counseling
and other alcohol-related treatment. Id. at 78. The Individual’s wife said the treatment has helped
the Individual to learn to set better boundaries and deal with potential triggers in his life. Id. She
testified that since the Individual stopped consuming alcohol, he seems less stressed, healthier, and
more energetic, and he communicates better. Id. at 79–80, 86. She explained that if the Individual
told her he planned to consume alcohol again, they would have a “serious conversation” about the
matter, and she would make sure that he talked to his personal therapist about the decision. Id. at
79.
The DOE Psychiatrist testified that, in his view, at the time of the hearing the Individual’s updated
diagnosis would be AUD, mild, in sustained remission. Id. at 127–28. He stated that the Individual
more than fulfilled the DOE Psychiatrist’s recommendation to provide six months of documented
4 “SMART Recovery is an evidenced-informed recovery method grounded in Rational Emotive Behavioral Therapy
(REBT) and Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), that supports people with substance dependencies or problem
behaviors to: (1) Build and maintain motivation, (2) Cope with urges and cravings, (3) Manage thoughts, feelings and
behaviors, (4) Live a balanced life.” Self Management and Recovery Training (SMART),
https://smartrecovery.org/what-is-smart-recovery (last visited January 7, 2026).
- 6 -
abstinence from alcohol, the Individual completed the requirements of FFD, he has remained
connected to SMART Recovery and EAP programs for relapse prevention, and he has continued
his treatment with his personal therapist. Id. at 129. Based on the testimony presented at the hearing
and the Individual’s exhibits, the DOE Psychiatrist expressed the opinion that the Individual is
adequately rehabilitated and reformed. Id. at 130. The DOE Psychiatrist testified further that the
Individual’s prognosis is excellent on a poor, good, excellent scale. Id. at 130–31.
V. ANALYSIS
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline G through the following
conditions:
(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 maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence
of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol 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.
The Individual has resolved the security concerns pursuant to mitigating factors (b) and (d). As to
mitigating factor (b), the Individual acknowledged that his alcohol use was maladaptive, provided
testimony and documentary evidence about his IOP and other alcohol-related programing, and
provided ten months of negative PEth tests to support his testimony that he was not consuming
alcohol. He has clearly taken the security concerns seriously and sought out treatment above and
beyond what was recommended by the DOE Psychiatrist.
As to mitigating factor (d), the Individual successfully completed his IOP and provided
documentation that he is continuing to attend SMART Recovery meetings and meet with his
personal therapist on a regular basis as recommended by the IOP. As mentioned previously, the
Individual provided ten months of negative PEth tests to support his claim that he has been
abstinent from alcohol. This documented abstinence is longer than the six months recommended
by the DOE Psychiatrist. On this basis, the DOE Psychiatrist gave the Individual an excellent
- 7 -
prognosis. Because he is unlikely to return to alcohol consumption, he is unlikely to engage in any
future alcohol-related incidents outside of work.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted 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-
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 set
forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. 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.
Erin C. Weinstock
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals