PSH-25-0208

*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 15, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0208
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: March 18, 2026
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 For
the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should not be
restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires that he hold a
security clearance. Derogatory information was discovered regarding the Individual’s alcohol use
and criminal conduct. The Local Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review
proceeding by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to
a hearing before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his
eligibility to continue holding a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). 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), the
Individual testified on his own behalf. The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE psychologist
(Psychologist) who had evaluated the Individual. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-
25-0208 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO submitted fifteen exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1
through 15 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The Individual submitted the results of two laboratory tests,
collectively marked as Exhibit A.
1 Under the regulations, “‘[a]ccess authorization’ means 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). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guidelines G and J of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline G states that “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:
(a) Alcohol-related incidents away from work, such as driving while under the
influence, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other
incidents of concern, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use
or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(b) 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, regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed
with alcohol use disorder;
(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) 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;
(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment
recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation,
treatment, or abstinence.
Id. at ¶ 22.
Guideline J states that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness. By its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply
with laws, rules, and regulations.” Id. at ¶ 30. Conditions that could raise a Guideline J security
concern include:
(a) A pattern of minor offenses, any one of which on its own would be unlikely to
affect a national security eligibility decision, but which in combination cast
doubt on the individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness;
3
(b) Evidence (including, but not limited to, a credible allegation, an admission, and
matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether the
individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted;
(c) Individual is currently on parole or probation;
(d) Violation or revocation of parole or probation, or failure to complete a court-
mandated rehabilitation program; and
(e) Discharge or dismissal from the Armed Forces for reasons less than
“Honorable.”
Id. at ¶ 31.
The LSO alleges the following:
• On November 30, 2024, the state highway patrol arrested and charged the Individual with
Driving While Intoxicated (DWI)-Alcohol, Prior Offender. His Blood Alcohol Content
(BAC) was 0.16. The Individual admitted to consuming 60 ounces of light beer in the three
hours prior to his arrest. This incident is cited as both an alcohol-related concern and an
instance of criminal conduct.
• On November 12, 2019, a local police department in the state where he resides arrested
and charged the Individual with DWI-Alcohol. His BAC at the time was 0.12. This incident
is also cited as both an alcohol-related concern and an instance of criminal conduct.
• The Psychologist evaluated the Individual on June 10, 2025, and, in a June 17, 2025 report,
concluded that the Individual habitually and binge-consumed alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment and had not demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation.
• A phosphatidyl ethanol (PEth)2 test administered on June 10, 2025, returned a positive
result of 199 ng/mL, which is noted as being consistent with alcohol consumption within
the last 30 days.
Ex. 1 at 5.3 Driving while intoxicated and habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of
impairment are both explicitly listed as conditions that could raise concerns under Guideline G.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23 (a), (c). Evidence of criminal conduct is explicitly listed as a
condition that could raise concern under Guideline J. Id. at ¶ 31(b). These allegations fit neatly
into these categories,4 so I find that the LSO’s security concerns under Guidelines G and J are
justified.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
2 A PEth test measures a blood sample for levels of an alcohol byproduct. Direct Ethanol Biomarker Testing: PETH,
Mayo Clinic Laboratories, https://news.mayocliniclabs.com/2022/09/13/direct-ethanol-biomarker-testing-peth-test-
in-focus/ (last visited March 16, 2026). The test can detect alcohol consumption in the three to four weeks preceding
the test. Id.
3 DOE exhibit page numbers will be cited using the Bates stamp in the top right corner of the documents.
4 The PEth test allegation does not raise a discrete concern but is supporting evidence for other concerns.
4
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 entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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 his eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence
at personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id.
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
The discussion below reflects my application of these factors to the testimony and exhibits
presented by both sides in this case.
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
In November 2019, the Individual was arrested for DWI. Ex. 3 at 13. Due to the COVID-19
pandemic, his trial was delayed and he was not convicted until January 2021. Tr. at 14. He
completed two years of probation and “a couple” court-mandated classes. Id. at 12. On November
30, 2024, at approximately 12:30 a.m., the Individual was arrested by the state highway patrol and
charged with DWI-Alcohol, Prior Offender. Ex. 5 at 20. The arrest occurred after a patrol officer
observed the Individual’s vehicle crossing the solid fog lines on the highway multiple times. Ex.
9 at 44. During the traffic stop, the officer detected a “strong odor of intoxicants” on the
Individual’s breath. Id. The Individual admitted to consuming “one or two beers” prior to driving.
Id. The Individual later admitted to drinking five twenty-four ounce beers prior to driving. Id. The
officer performed a field sobriety test, which the Individual failed. Id. at 44–45. A preliminary
breath test administered at the scene indicated a Blood Alcohol Content (BAC) of 0.161%. Id. at
40, 44. After he was arrested, the Individual later refused to submit to a chemical breath test at the
jail. Id.
Following the November 2024 arrest, the DOE initiated an inquiry into the Individual’s continued
eligibility for a security clearance. This included multiple Letters of Interrogatory (LOI) and a
psychological evaluation. Ex. 1 at 3. In his response to an LOI dated April 25, 2025, the Individual
admitted to consuming alcohol before the November 2024 arrest, stating he drank three 12-ounce
5
beers and two 24-ounce beers over a four-hour period. Ex. 8 at 30. He claimed that since the arrest,
he had significantly reduced his alcohol consumption to no more than three beers on any given
occasion, approximately once a month.5 Id. at 32. In his September 2025 Request for
Administrative Review, the Individual stated that he had discontinued “drinking and driving” and
was taking his Type 2 diabetes diagnosis more seriously. Ex. 2 at 11. The Individual attributed the
0.16 BAC reading from his November 2024 arrest to a potential false positive caused by a
hypoglycemic state. Id. See also Ex. 7 at 27.
On June 10, 2025, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation conducted by the DOE
Psychologist. Ex. 11 at 71. As part of this evaluation, the Individual submitted to a PEth test, which
returned a positive result of 199 ng/mL. Id. at 96. The Individual told the Psychologist that he
typically consumed one or two beers once or twice per month, but had consumed a combined total
of eight drinks over two occasions in the 30 days prior to the psychological evaluation. Id. at 94.
According to a consulting psychiatrist’s interpretation, the Individual’s PEth level suggested that
he was consuming well over fourteen drinks per week and therefore had underreported his alcohol
consumption to the Psychologist. Id. at 76, 95.
The Psychologist concluded that the Individual habitually and binge consumed alcohol to the point
of impaired judgment because he had multiple DWI events and had underreported his alcohol
consumption. Ex. 11 at 76. He opined that the Individual had not demonstrated adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. The Psychologist recommended, for the Individual to show
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, that he complete a substance abuse treatment program
at least four months in length; attend a support group such as Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or
SMART Recovery at least weekly for a year while working the steps of the program and meeting
with a sponsor if offered by the program; attend monthly relapse prevention sessions after
completing the substance abuse treatment program; abstain from alcohol; and demonstrate
abstinence by undergoing monthly PEth tests for a year. Id. at 76.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that prior to his 2019 DWI, he typically drank alcohol while
participating in pool or bowling leagues. Tr. at 9–10. He testified that he would “drink a little bit
just socializing, drinking, having a few on the night and on the weekends a little bit, occasionally,
when hanging out with friends.” Id. On the day of his 2019 DWI, the Individual drank seven or
eight rum and diet soda drinks in about four hours because he was upset. Id. at 10. He completed
two years of probation and some court mandated alcohol education classes, the names of which he
could not recall at the hearing. Id. at 12. He testified that his mother had expressed concern about
his alcohol use at that time. Id. at 30.
The Individual testified that after his 2019 DWI, he stopped drinking in situations where he would
have to drive afterward. Tr. at 16. He typically consumed alcohol at sports events and with friends.
Id. He testified that when he drank, it was one beer every two hours. Id. at 17. He testified that on
the day of his 2024 DWI, he had been drinking at a football game and did not consume alcohol
after 5:30 p.m. Id. at 18. The Individual was fighting the DWI charge because he believed he was
not drinking just before driving. Id. at 15. The Individual continued consuming alcohol after his
2024 DWI arrest, testifying that he drank “occasionally, but it was very seldom because I was
5 The Individual told the Psychologist that prior to the November 2024 DWI, he consumed about two beers per week.
Ex. 11 at 75.
6
distraught, but I also knew that I wasn’t drinking and driving.” Id. at 24. He then testified that in
May 2025, he would go to a friend’s house every other weekend, stay there for the weekend, and
“drink a lot during those weekends.” Id.
The Individual testified that he had received the Psychologist’s report about four months prior to
the hearing. Tr. at 21. He testified that he did not start implementing all of the Psychologist’s
recommendations because he “wasn’t under the impression that I was instructed to start. . . . I did
not make an action toward because I’m kind of an instruction follower . . . and I was kind of under
the impression I was waiting for an instruction to do things.” Id. at 21–22. The Individual testified
that he stopped consuming alcohol in July 2025 after learning that he would be going through the
Administrative Review process, but did not undergo any treatment. Id. at 22–23. He testified “I
have attended AA meetings, once a week,” starting two days before the hearing. Id. at 22–23, 43–
44. He planned to continue attending weekly. Id. at 23.
The Individual submitted to a PEth test in October 2025, which returned a negative result. Ex. A
at 1–2. He did not take another PEth test until late January 2026. Id. at 3. That test also returned a
negative result. Id. at 3–4. He testified that he waited three months to undergo the second test
because they were expensive and he wanted to show long-term abstinence. Id. at 27. He testified
that he would be willing to submit to monthly PEth tests “if I hundred percent knew that I needed
to do it . . . . But to not know if it would really help the decision [regarding my eligibility for a
security clearance] or not, I didn’t want to feel like I’m throwing $150 away a month.” Id.
The Individual testified that he did not change his lifestyle when diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetes
in February 2024 because he did not want to believe the diagnosis. Tr. at 29, 36. He testified that
he began getting regular treatment for diabetes once every three months after his 2024 DWI arrest,
but had not seen a provider lately. Id. at 28.
The Individual testified that he believed he did not have a problem with alcohol because “a problem
with alcohol is not being able to control how much,” and he “could stop at any moment.” Tr. at
31–32. He still participated in sports like golf or pool that he had previously done while consuming
alcohol, but now he drank soda or non-alcoholic beer. Id. at 33. He testified that his friends knew
he was abstaining from alcohol and supported him. Id. at 33–34. He testified that he intended to
continue abstaining from alcohol. Id. at 35.
The Individual’s 2024 DWI case was scheduled to go to trial in March 2026. Tr.at 46.
The Psychologist testified that even if the Individual had abstained from alcohol since July 2025,
he still did not have an understanding of the processes involved in addiction and had not developed
strategies or skills to help him make better decisions about alcohol, understand urges related to
alcohol, or understand the possible consequences of future alcohol consumption. Tr. at 53–54. He
testified that the Individual’s prognosis was fair at best because the Individual did not believe he
currently had a problem with alcohol and was therefore unlikely to seek treatment. Id. at 55. The
Psychologist testified that the Individual’s past behaviors suggested that the Individual “makes
poor choices in situations where he should take a more proactive role, and he tends to deny
difficulties in his life, whether they’re medical issues such as diabetes, or alcohol-related
experiences.” Id. at 58. He noted that during the Individual’s psychological evaluation, he had
7
denied or minimized “any difficulties, or even minor human foibles” on a personality test (the
Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory), so denial was an issue for the Individual. Id. See
also id. at 81–91. He believed the Individual was at significant risk for future alcohol-related
problems because he had not sought treatment even after repeated DWI arrests. Id. at 59.
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
restoring the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
A. Guideline G
Conditions that may mitigate Guideline G concerns 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.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23. None of the mitigating conditions apply.
8
Regarding condition (a), the Individual was arrested for multiple DWIs in a span of five years.
While it has been just over a year since the Individual’s second DWI arrest, the Individual has
demonstrated that a year is not enough time, on its own, to show that he will not drink and drive
in the future. Moreover, he has not abstained from alcohol for a year and admitted that even six
months after being arrested for his second DWI, he would go to a friend’s house to “drink a lot”
over the weekend multiple times per month. The Individual’s alcohol use was not infrequent or so
far in the past that it no longer casts doubt on his current judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.
Accordingly, I find that mitigating condition (a) does not apply.
Regarding condition (b), the Individual does not admit to having an issue with alcohol and asserted,
without evidence, that his second DWI was the result of high blood sugar even though a
breathalyzer test showed a BAC of twice the legal limit for driving. He admitted to continuing to
consume alcohol after his second DWI because he was “distraught” and to binge drinking on
weekends with friends. The Individual did not provide evidence to support his testimony regarding
the effect of diabetes on his BAC result. I find the breathalyzer result and the Individual’s first
PEth result, both submitted as part of DOE’s exhibit notebook, convincing evidence that the
Individual was, indeed, intoxicated when pulled over in November 2024 and that he habitually or
binge consumed alcohol to the point of intoxication. The Individual denies that he has a problem
with alcohol, so I cannot find that he admitted to his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use. He has
not pursued any interventions to address his maladaptive alcohol use except attending a single AA
meeting and, therefore, has not demonstrated evidence of actions to overcome the problem.
Furthermore, the Individual asserted that he had abstained from alcohol for only seven months and
only provided documentary evidence of abstinence (via PEth testing) for two of those months. I
cannot find that he has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence for one year in
accordance with the only treatment recommendations the Individual received. Accordingly, I find
that mitigating condition (b) does not apply.
Mitigating conditions (c) and (d) do not apply because the Individual has not started a treatment
program.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has not resolved the concerns raised under
Guideline G.
B. Guideline J
Conditions that could mitigate Guideline J security concerns include:
(a) So much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those
pressures are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) No reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) There is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance
with the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good
employment record, or constructive community involvement.
9
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32. None of the mitigating factors apply.
As an initial matter, the Individual’s criminal case is still pending. Furthermore, he has not resolved
the underlying substance issues that led to his two DWI arrests. Until those two items are resolved,
I cannot find that the Individual is unlikely to reoffend, that he is rehabilitated, or that the criminal
behavior does not cast doubt on the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. In
addition to the alcohol-related considerations that prevent me from finding the Guideline J concern
mitigated, other factors also weigh against mitigation.
Regarding condition (a), the Individual’s recidivism is recent and happened years after his original
DWI. Slightly over one year without a criminal charge is not long enough, in this instance, to show
that the behavior is unlikely to recur. Regarding condition (b), the Individual did not allege that he
was pressured or coerced into driving while intoxicated. Regarding condition (c), there is reliable
evidence (the contemporaneous breathalyzer test, the police report) to support that the Individual
committed the offense. Regarding condition (d), the Individual has not yet resolved the DWI
charges, and, therefore, he cannot have complied with the terms of parole or probation, completed
restitution, or otherwise paid his debt to society. Moreover, he presented no evidence that he has
taken any other action listed in condition (d) such that I could conclude that he has changed with
respect to his compliance with rules or exercise of sound judgment.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns raised under
Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guidelines G and J
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has not succeeded in fully
resolving those concerns. Therefore, I cannot conclude that restoring DOE access authorization to
the Individual “will not endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with
the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should not restore
access authorization to the Individual.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals