PSH-25-0181

*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: August 12, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0181
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: January 16, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, 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 be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
On February 27, 2019, the Individual completed and signed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP) as part of seeking access authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 15 at 194.2 Therein, the
Individual disclosed that he had been arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI)
in 2015. Id. at 182. The Individual was subsequently granted access authorization.
On October 7, 2024, the local security office (LSO) received a Personnel Security Information
Report (PSIR) indicating the Individual had been arrested and charged with DUI. Ex. 7. In the
PSIR, the Individual represented that he had consumed “a couple” of alcoholic beverages prior to
his arrest. Id. at 214. The LSO issued the Individual a letter of interrogatory (LOI) concerning his
arrest and alcohol consumption. Ex. 9 at 210‒11. On April 29, 2025, the Individual met with a
1 The regulations define access authorization as “an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access
to classified matter or is eligible for access to, or control over, special nuclear material.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.5(a). This
Decision will refer to such authorization as access authorization or security clearance.
2 The exhibits submitted by the local security office (LSO) were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each
page. This Decision will refer to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by the LSO.
- 2 -
DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for a psychological evaluation. Ex. 10 at 57.
The DOE Psychologist subsequently issued a report of the evaluation (Report) in which she opined
that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD), Mild, in early remission, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Health
Disorders – Fifth Edition-Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Id. at 63.
The LSO issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1
at 6‒8. A Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 5.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 2. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing in
December 2025. The LSO submitted eleven exhibits (Ex. 1–11) and the Individual submitted
twenty-three exhibits (Ex. A‒W).3 The Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the
testimony of his Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor (Sponsor) and a psychologist who
conducted an evaluation of the Individual (Individual’s Psychologist). Transcript of Hearing, OHA
Case No. PSH-25-0181 at 3, 11, 28, 78 (Tr.). The LSO offered the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist. Id. at 3, 89.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 5.
“Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable judgment or the failure
to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. The SSC cited the Individual’s DUI arrests and charges in 2015
and 2024, and the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria
for a diagnosis of AUD under the DSM-5-TR. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s allegations that the Individual
experienced alcohol-related incidents away from work and was diagnosed with AUD by a duly
qualified mental health professional justify its invocation of Guideline G. Adjudicative Guidelines
at ¶ 22(a), (d).
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”
3 The Individual submitted Ex. A‒T as a single PDF and submitted Ex. U‒W as three separate PDFs. This Decision
cites to the Individual’s exhibits by reference to their exhibit labels and pagination in the PDFs within which they are
contained.
- 3 -
standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should err, if they
must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990) (strong
presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
An individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of
evidence at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
A. Individual’s 2015 DUI
The Individual was arrested and charged with DUI in March 2015 after he fell asleep while driving
and drove into a median. Ex. 15 at 203, 228. The charges were subsequently reduced to Reckless
Endangerment, of which the Individual was found guilty in April 2016. Id. at 228. The Individual
was sentenced to pay fines and costs, serve forty-eight hours in jail, complete a DUI education
class and victim impact panel, perform community service, and have an ignition interlock device
installed on his vehicle. Id. The Individual successfully completed all court-ordered requirements
in 2017. Id. at 203.
The alcohol education class provider evaluated the Individual for substance use disorders in
connection with his 2015 DUI. Id. at 224‒25. The evaluator diagnosed the Individual with
“Alcohol Abuse” and recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol and attend AA or
another alcohol abstinence support group for four months; however, the Individual did not do so.
Id.; Ex. 10 at 60. According to the Individual, he abstained from alcohol for approximately three
months following his 2015 DUI arrest but resumed consuming alcohol because he lacked a
sufficient support system. Tr. at 53.
B. Individual’s 2024 DUI
On October 5, 2024, the Individual began consuming alcohol at a bar at approximately 7:00 PM.
Ex. 10 at 58. The Individual left the bar at approximately 4:00 AM on October 6, 2024. Id. The
Individual fell asleep at the wheel of his vehicle while driving and the vehicle ran off the road and
struck a barrier. Id. The Individual was subsequently arrested and charged with DUI. Ex. 6 at 28.
A blood sample collected from the Individual at 6:03 AM on October 6, 2024, measured his blood
alcohol concentration (BAC) at .123 g/210L. Id. at 31; Ex. 12 at 94.
The 2024 DUI charge was reduced to Aggravated Reckless Driving, of which the Individual was
adjudged guilty in April 2025. See Ex. 10 at 59 (reflecting information provided by the Individual
to the DOE Psychologist during the clinical interview). The Individual was ordered to attend a
victim impact panel, undergo a substance abuse evaluation, and pay fines and costs. See id. The
- 4 -
Individual completed the victim impact panel on April 16, 2025, and the substance abuse
evaluation on July 31, 2025. Ex. I at 31; Ex. P at 56‒59.
In addition to the court-ordered actions, the Individual’s employer required him to undergo a
substance abuse evaluation with a Licensed Professional Counselor (LPC) on October 23, 2024.
Ex. H at 27 (LPC report). Following the evaluation, the LPC diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol
Intoxication Without Use Disorder. Id. The LPC recommended that the Individual complete an
eight-hour alcohol education class and participate in seventeen hours of AA meetings or another
recovery support group. Id. On November 27, 2024, the LPC conducted a follow-up meeting with
the Individual, based on which the LPC concluded that the Individual had complied with his
recommendations. Id.
C. Opinion of the DOE Psychologist
The Individual met with the DOE Psychologist for the clinical interview portion of the
psychological evaluation on April 29, 2025. Ex. 10 at 57. The Individual described his alcohol
consumption on the night of his arrest for DUI, and the DOE Psychologist estimated that the
Individual’s BAC reached as high as .24 g/210L. Id. at 59. During the clinical interview, the
Individual reported having abstained from alcohol since his arrest on October 6, 2024, and
indicated that he intended to permanently abstain from alcohol because he did not believe that he
could consume alcohol in a controlled manner or limit himself to just one drink when he consumed
alcohol. Id. at 59, 61. The Individual provided a sample for a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test,
which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption.4 Id. at 68.
Based on the extremely elevated BAC she calculated that the Individual reached on the night of
his arrest for DUI and his admitted difficulty in stopping himself from consuming alcohol once he
began to do so, the DOE Psychologist found that the Individual met two DSM-5-TR diagnostic
criteria for AUD – “Alcohol is often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period than was
intended” and “tolerance.” Id. at 61; see also id. at 65‒66 (listing the DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria
for AUD). Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist found that the Individual met sufficient criteria for
a diagnosis of AUD, Mild. Id. at 63. She further specified that the Individual’s AUD was in early
remission based on the Individual’s claimed six months of abstinence from alcohol, which she
credited due to partial substantiation from the PEth test. Id. at 61‒62. The DOE Psychologist
recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by establishing at least five
consecutive months of abstinence from alcohol following the evaluation, documented by monthly
PEth tests, attending AA meetings at least three times weekly for five months, and working with
an AA sponsor. Id. at 63.
D. Individual’s Treatment and Opinion of the Individual’s Psychologist
4 “PEth is a biomarker for alcohol consumption that can be detected in blood for approximately thirty days following
moderate or greater episodes of alcohol consumption.” See Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0093
at 5 n.3 (2025) (summarizing information from a medical doctor and journal article concerning PEth testing).
- 5 -
The Individual began attending AA meetings in October 2024 and usually attended meetings three
times weekly since then. Tr. at 30, 50; Ex. K; Ex. U; but see Ex. K at 35 (AA sign-in sheets showing
that the Individual’s attendance was sporadic in May and June of 2025); Tr. at 58 (Individual
attributing his reduced attendance during this period to moving to a different residence). The
Individual introduces himself as an alcoholic at AA meetings. Tr. at 32‒33. In approximately July
2025, the Individual began working with the Sponsor. Id. at 13. Starting in July 2025, the
Individual and the Sponsor met weekly to work the twelve steps of the AA program and then attend
an AA meeting immediately thereafter. Id. at 13‒14, 30. The Individual and the Sponsor also
interacted through other AA meetings they attended together, phone calls, and text messages. Id.
at 14. The Individual completed the first three steps of the AA program and, as of the hearing date,
was working on the fourth step. Id. According to the Sponsor, the Individual’s participation in the
AA program had been “above average” and the Individual had “put[] in the effort.” Id. at 23.
The Individual testified at the hearing that he had not consumed alcohol since his October 2024
DUI arrest. Id. at 28, 49. The Individual provided samples for PEth testing on August 1, 2025,
August 29, 2025, October 3, 2025, November 3, 2025, November 20, 2025, and December 12,
2025, each of which was negative for traces of alcohol consumption. Ex. C at 14; Ex. D at 16; Ex.
E at 18; Ex. F at 20; Ex. V; Ex. W. The Individual utilized his Sponsor and the teachings of the
AA program to support his abstinence from alcohol; for example, in October 2025, at his
daughter’s wedding where alcohol was served, he carried an AA chip and communicated with his
Sponsor throughout the day to support his decision not to consume alcohol. Tr. at 18, 30. The
Individual testified at the hearing that he intends to permanently abstain from alcohol. Id. at 29.
The Individual met with the Individual’s Psychologist for a clinical interview and a series of
psychological tests over several days in September and October 2025. Ex. A at 2. The information
collected by the Individual’s Psychologist led him to conclude that the Individual recognized that
alcohol had caused him difficulties in his life and was taking adequate steps to address these issues
through attending AA and abstaining from alcohol. Id. at 3‒4. Based on the Individual’s clinical
presentation, AA attendance, and self-reported abstinence from alcohol of one year, some of which
was documented through PEth testing, the Individual’s Psychologist opined that the Individual had
“demonstrated commitment to his recovery and reformation.” Id. at 4.
E. Updated Opinions of the DOE Psychologist and Individual’s Psychologist
The Individual’s Psychologist testified at the hearing that he concurred with the DOE
Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with AUD, Mild. Tr. at 83. He opined that the Individual
had an excellent prognosis for avoiding a return to maladaptive alcohol use considering the
Individual’s AA attendance, the Sponsor’s testimony as to the Individual’s diligent participation
in the AA program, the Individual’s testimony as to his positive attitude towards sobriety, and the
evidence from the PEth testing of the Individual’s abstinence from alcohol. Id. at 83‒85.
The DOE Psychologist testified that, as of the hearing date, the Individual’s AUD was in sustained
remission. Id. at 89. She opined that the Individual’s AA participation had been effective and that
he had complied with her treatment recommendations. Id. at 92‒93. Accordingly, the DOE
Psychologist concluded that the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation and had a good
prognosis. Id. at 93. Supporting her conclusion, the DOE Psychologist noted the Individual’s
- 6 -
positive support through the AA program and his ability to maintain sobriety during potentially
challenging circumstances, such as his daughter’s wedding, major holidays, and the security
clearance adjudicative process. Id. at 93‒94.
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; 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.
Id. at ¶ 23.
The Individual has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, identifying himself as an
alcoholic in AA meetings and stating to the DOE Psychologist, to the Individual’s Psychologist,
and at the hearing that he cannot consume alcohol in a controlled manner and intends to abstain
going forward. The Individual has also demonstrated action to control this problem through his
participation in AA. Furthermore, he has abstained from alcohol, demonstrating his abstinence
therefrom through alcohol testing, consistent with the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations. Both
the Individual’s Psychologist and DOE Psychologist provided positive prognoses for the
Individual, convincing me that his maladaptive alcohol use and alcohol-related criminal conduct
are unlikely to recur. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of “the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence” in applying the mitigating conditions). Accordingly, I find that the
Individual has demonstrated the applicability of the second mitigating condition. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 23(b).
Based on the applicability of the second mitigating condition, and particularly the positive
prognoses offered by the experts at the hearing, I find that the Individual has resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
VI. CONCLUSION
- 7 -
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 relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find
that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns asserted
by the LSO. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access authorization should be
restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.28.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals