PSH-25-0198

*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: September 5, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0198
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 16, 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 be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position that requires that she hold a security
clearance. In January 2025, the Individual completed a Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), in which she reported that, in the last seven years, her employer recommended
that she receive treatment as a result of her use of alcohol. Exhibit (Ex.) 10 at 151–52; Ex. 7 at 26.2
In March 2025, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual requesting additional details about her alcohol treatment. Ex. 7. In the LOI, the
Individual reported that her employer received a report that she smelled of alcohol in the workplace
and then recommended that she seek alcohol treatment. Id. at 26. She also reported that since 2012,
she typically consumed “4–6 drinks” of vodka or wine on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. Id.
at 26–31.
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, 558-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
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s alcohol consumption, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who
conducted a clinical interview of the Individual in June 2025 and issued a report (the Report) of
her findings. Ex. 8. Based on her evaluation of the Individual, 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 Unspecified Alcohol-
Related Disorder, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 52–53.
In August 2025, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed reliable
information that created substantial doubt regarding her 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. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from four witnesses: the Individual, the Individual’s
Personal Counselor, the Individual’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP) Counselor, and the
DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0198 (Tr.). Counsel for the
DOE submitted twelve exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 12. The Individual submitted seven
exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through G.
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: “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 . . . ,” “habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder,” and 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(b)‒(d).
In invoking Guideline G, the LSO cited the Individual’s admission, in the March 2025 LOI, that
in January 2025, her employer “expressed concerns that she smelled of alcohol,” and that from
2012 to January 2025, she would consume “up to four to six drinks of vodka or wine on Thursdays,
Fridays and Saturdays.” Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also cited the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the
Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Unspecified Alcohol-
Related Disorder, without evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
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
3
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
In October 2024, the Individual’s employer received reports that the Individual smelled of alcohol
in the workplace and referred her for Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)3 testing. Ex. 8 at 43. The result
of the Individual’s PEth test was positive at a level of 529 ng/mL, which indicated “excess alcohol
consumption.” Id. at 43–44, 72–73. Based on the Individual’s October 2024 PEth test result, the
Individual’s employer placed her in their Fitness for Duty (FFD) program, which “evaluates an
employee’s ability to work safely and reliably due to medical, behavioral health, or substance use
concern[s].” Ex. E; Ex. 8 at 43. As part of her employer’s FFD program, the Individual was
required to undergo alcohol testing, weekly. Ex. 8 at 44; Tr. at 68. The Individual was also required
to meet with a therapist (FFD Therapist), who encouraged her to obtain alcohol treatment. Ex. 8
at 44. The Individual successfully completed her employer’s FFD program on December 3, 2025.
Ex. C; Ex. E.; Tr. at 69.
During her June 2025 psychological evaluation, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that as
of October 2024, she typically consumed one and a half bottles of wine and “two mixed drinks”
per night, on Thursday, Friday, and Saturday evenings. Ex. 8 at 45. She reported that she last
consumed alcohol on January 13, 2025, when she drank a full bottle of wine. Id. The Individual
reported that since January 2025, she was participating in alcohol classes provided by her
employer’s EAP, and that she was seeing her Personal Counselor. Id. at 46. As part of the
evaluation, the DOE Psychologist had a telephone consultation with the Individual’s FFD
Therapist, who told the DOE Psychologist that the Individual had accepted responsibility for her
actions, and had gained significant insight into her alcohol use through her participation in the
alcohol classes via her employer’s EAP. Id. at 44.
3 The DOE Psychologist’s Report indicates that PEth “detects any significant alcohol use over the past three to four
weeks.” Ex. 8 at 51. “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy [alcohol]
consumption.” Id. at 69.
4
As part of the psychological evaluation, on June 6, 2025, the Individual underwent PEth testing,
the result of which was negative. Ex. 8 at 51, 68–69. The Report also indicates that as part of her
employer’s FFD Program, the Individual underwent Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG)4 and PEth testing,
the results of which supported that she had abstained from alcohol since April 2025. Id. at 44.5 The
DOE Psychologist opined that although the Individual appeared to be abstaining from alcohol, her
previous level of alcohol consumption, in October 2024, was high, led to workplace intervention,
and led to the initiation of clinical monitoring by her employer. Id. Therefore, the DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Id at 52.
Although the Individual was receiving alcohol treatment and had demonstrated abstinence from
alcohol since April 2025, the DOE Psychologist opined that she was still “early in her recovery”
and that she had not achieved rehabilitation or reformation from her Unspecified Alcohol-Related
Disorder. Id. To show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from her Unspecified
Alcohol-Related Disorder, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual abstain from
alcohol for one year, supported by monthly PEth testing, complete the 12-week substance abuse
class provided by her employer’s EAP, and attend either Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), another
evidence-based peer support group, or continue to participate in her employer’s EAP alcohol
classes. Id. at 53.
In January 2025, the Individual took a six-week alcohol education class, provided by her
employer’s EAP. Tr. at 29. The EAP Counselor testified that she is a facilitator for the six-week
alcohol education class. Id. at 46. Each class meets weekly, for one hour. Id. at 43. The EAP
Counselor explained that the six-week class educates its participants on the amount of alcohol in
a standard drink, a medical provider informs the class about alcohol’s effects on the body, and a
psychologist provides information about alcohol testing. Id. at 51. She explained that the
Individual was an active participant in the class and attended the class weekly. Id. at 48–49. The
Individual explained that while attending this class, she realized that she had a drinking problem.
Id. at 29. The Individual testified that during this class, she realized that she did not know what a
“standard drink” was. Id. at 47‒48. She also testified that she did not realize how many ounces of
alcohol she consumed when she had previously consumed alcohol at home but estimated she was
consuming anywhere from four to six ounces of alcohol at one time and that she had “an over-
pouring problem.” Id. at 29, 31, 47‒48, 58–59. The EAP Counselor testified that the Individual
successfully completed the class. Id. at 46–47.6
After completing the six-week alcohol education class, on March 20, 2025, the Individual began a
12-week class focused on substance abuse provided by her employer’s EAP. Tr. at 51–52. The
4 EtG “is a metabolite of ethyl alcohol that is present in the urine for up to 80 hours after any alcohol beverage is
consumed.” Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-24-0154 at 6 (2024) (citing definition of EtG contained
in the report of a DOE-consultant psychologist). A negative test “provides strong medical evidence that the subject
was abstinent from alcohol during the three days prior to the sample collection.” Id.
5 The Report indicates that, as part of the FFD Program, the Individual “underwent random EtG testing, with three
positive results recorded between December 2024 and January 2025.” Ex. 8 at 44. A March 6, 2025, PEth test was
positive at a level of 35 ng/mL, which indicated that the Individual “consumed alcohol sometime within the preceding
two to three weeks.” Id. at 44, 52, 74–75. PEth tests taken on April 4, 2025, and May 13, 2025, were both negative.
Id. at 44, 76
6 The Individual submitted a Certificate of Completion for the six-week class, which indicated she successfully
completed the class on February 27, 2025. Ex. A. at 1. However, the EAP Counselor’s records indicated that she
completed the class on March 6, 2025. Tr. at 46; Ex. F.
5
EAP Counselor testified that she also serves as a facilitator for this class. Id. at 43. She explained
that the 12-week class is designed as a support group, where the participants talk to each other
about their experiences with alcohol and other substances, so they feel less isolated. Id. at 52. This
class requires that its participants abstain from alcohol, but it does not conduct alcohol testing and
relies on the participants to self-report that they are not consuming alcohol. Id. The EAP Counselor
explained that the Individual was an active participant in this class, she was engaged, she shared
her history with alcohol, and she interacted with other participants. Id. at 53. The Individual
testified that the camaraderie of this class raised her self-esteem and made her realize that she is a
strong person. Id. at 65. The Individual completed this class on August 28, 2025, and submitted a
certificate of completion. Id. at 52; Ex. A at 2. The Individual also submitted a letter from the EAP
Counselor, which corroborated her testimony, as to the Individual’s completion of the six-week
and 12-week alcohol classes and that she was an active participant in both classes. Ex. F.
After completing the 12-week substance abuse class, the Individual continued to attend the group
sessions. Tr. at 31. The EAP Counselor also testified that as of January 22, 2026, the Individual
had attended her 19th group session. Id. at 54. The Individual testified that the group meetings help
her with her anxiety because she gets to talk to people and the other group members listen to her
stories. Id. at 31.
Since March 2025, the Individual has attended 24, 30-minute, therapy sessions with her Personal
Counselor. Tr. at 12. At the hearing, the Individual’s Personal Counselor testified that the
Individual’s treatment plan included developing awareness of her triggers to drink, and the
Individual admitted that she drank due to boredom and being alone. Id. at 14–15, 24, 38–39. The
Individual also learned coping strategies to avoid drinking in the future, and developed
communication skills so she can be assertive in resisting offers to drink alcohol. Id. at 14–15, 24.
The Personal Counselor also testified to teaching the Individual about “distress tolerance,
emotional regulation, and interpersonal skills,” which raised the Individual’s self-esteem and
helped her set boundaries with others. Id. at 20. He stated that the Individual did “an excellent job”
adhering to the treatment plan, including using the tools she has learned to avoid relapsing. Id. at
16. He explained that the Individual recently lost her pet and had used the material he gave her on
how to cope with difficult situations by seeking support from family and friends without
consuming alcohol. Id. at 17, 19. He stated that the Individual was committed to remaining
abstinent from alcohol. Id. at 18–19. As of the hearing, he was meeting with the Individual once a
month. Id. at 16. Their last session was approximately four weeks before the hearing. Id. He
believed the Individual was very “strong” in this stage of her alcohol recovery, and that she knows
that her goals do not involve the use of alcohol. Id. at 21–22. The Individual also testified that
these sessions helped her successfully set boundaries with people who previously encouraged her
to drink. Id. at 17–18. The Individual’s Personal Counselor also submitted a letter, which
corroborated his testimony as to the details of his therapy sessions with the Individual, and
indicated that she is making good progress. Ex. D.
Since March 2025, the Individual has seen a psychiatrist. Tr. at 67. At the hearing, the Individual
testified that she initially saw her psychiatrist weekly, but as of the hearing, she was seeing the
psychiatrist monthly. Id. at 68. She explained that these sessions initially focused on her alcohol
consumption, but more recently, the sessions have focused on her personal development, and how
she can maintain her sobriety by managing her anxiety. Id.
6
At the hearing, the Individual testified that she takes pride in being a clearance holder, that her job
is the most important thing in her life, and that she is committed to proving that she can stop
drinking alcohol. Tr. at 29. She submitted documentary evidence, to support her testimony
concerning her abstinence from alcohol. Id. at 70–72. From April 2025 to February 2026, the
Individual took 12 PEth tests,7 the results of which were negative. Ex. 8 at 44, 68; Ex. B at 1–12;
Ex. H. She also explained that she reserves time to talk to members of her support system: her
family and close friends. Tr. at 72.8 She also follows the recommendation of her Personal
Counselor and goes out to meet people more often. Id. at 73. She explained that since she has
stopped drinking alcohol, she has lost 55 pounds, she is more outgoing, and she participates in
more craft activities. Id at 39, 73. She also stated that she can shop at grocery stores, which sell
alcohol, and go out to dinner with her friends and family, without purchasing and drinking alcohol.
Id. at 37.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing
and reviewing the Individual’s exhibits, the Individual had shown adequate evidence of
rehabilitation from her Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Tr. at 86–87. She explained that the
Individual received professional alcohol treatment, including individual treatment sessions with
both her Personal Counselor and her psychiatrist. Id. at 87. She also stated that the alcohol classes
provided by the Individual’s employer’s EAP were sufficiently like AA and other alcohol support
group programs so as to satisfy her recommendation. Id. The DOE Psychologist concluded that
the testimony provided during the hearing showed that the Individual learned about her triggers to
drink alcohol and how to maintain behavioral changes to avoid drinking alcohol in the future. Id.
Furthermore, the DOE Psychologist explained that the Individual’s PEth test results, from April
2025 to February 2026, demonstrated that she had abstained from alcohol for eleven months. Id.
at 89. Although the Individual was one month shy of the 12 months of abstinence the DOE
Psychologist recommended, the DOE Psychologist explained that she did not need to see an
additional month of abstinence, and she felt confident in opining that the Individual was
successfully rehabilitated from her Unspecified Alcohol-Related Disorder. Id. at 89–90.
Finally, as for a prognosis, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual’s prognosis was
excellent because she followed her treatment recommendations, she showed an ongoing
commitment to alcohol treatment by continuing to attend her EAP classes, she continued to see
her psychiatrist, and she maintained contact with her support group, which consisted of her friends
and family. Id. at 91. She explained that the Individual is at a low risk of relapse because the death
of her pet was a “significant emotional event,” and she was able to cope with that event without
drinking alcohol. Id. at 92.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline G include:
7 The Individual underwent PEth testing on April 4, 2025, May 8, 2025, June 7, 2025, June 12, 2025, July 9, 2025,
August 19, 2025, September 10, 2025, October 15, 2025, November 14, 2025, December 1, 2025, January 2, 2026,
and February 3, 2026. Ex. 8 at 44, 68; Ex. B at 1–12; Ex. H.
8 The Individual submitted a letter from a co-worker, who wrote that she has known the Individual since 2014, and
that when they socialize outside of work, the Individual does not drink alcohol. Ex. G.
7
(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.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns
related to her alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(b) and ¶ 23(d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The
DOE Psychologist’s Report indicates that during her participation in the FFD Program, the FFD
Therapist found that the Individual accepted responsibility for her excessive alcohol consumption.
The Individual admitted that as of October 2024, she was consuming one and a half bottles of
wine, and two mixed drinks, per night, on Thursdays, Fridays, and Saturdays. She also admitted
that while participating in the six-week alcohol education class, she realized how much alcohol
she was consuming and that she had a drinking problem. Therefore, I find that the Individual has
acknowledged that her maladaptive alcohol use was a problem.
After meeting with the FFD Therapist, the Individual spent 12 months taking actions to overcome
her problematic alcohol consumption. Between January 2025 and August 2025, the Individual
successfully completed two alcohol education classes provided by her employer’s EAP. The EAP
Counselor testified to the Individual’s active participation during both classes, and stated that the
classes focus on both triggers to drink and the standard amount of alcohol in a drink. Since March
2025, the Individual has seen her Personal Counselor, who testified that the Individual did an
excellent job adhering to her treatment plan and using the tools she learned to avoid consuming
alcohol. Her Personal Counselor also found that the Individual’s ability to cope with the death of
her pet, without consuming alcohol, supports that she was very strong during this stage in her
alcohol recovery and demonstrates her commitment to using the tools she learned during her
sessions to abstain from alcohol. The Individual also testified that she meets with a psychiatrist
monthly, and that the sessions focused on her alcohol consumption and how to maintain her
abstinence by managing her anxiety.
The Individual submitted 12 negative PEth tests, dated from April 2025 to February 2026, which
demonstrates a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol for approximately eleven
months. After reviewing the Individual’s evidence and the testimony provided during the hearing,
the DOE Psychologist opined that, although she recommended that the Individual abstain from
alcohol for 12 months, she did not need to see evidence of an additional month of abstinence to
8
have confidence that the Individual was successfully rehabilitated from her Unspecified Alcohol-
Related Disorder. Finally, the DOE Psychologist testified that because the Individual continued to
participate in the EAP group class, continued to see her psychiatrist, and testified to using her
friends and family as a support network, she had an excellent prognosis for her continued recovery.
I conclude that the Individual has acknowledged her pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, has
provided sufficient evidence she successfully completed the treatment program recommended by
the DOE Psychologist, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence
sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b), (d).
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 brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve
the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has demonstrated that restoring her
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 be restored. 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