PSH-25-0212

*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 17, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-25-0212
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 10, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
Erin C. Weinstock, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 5.2 In October 2024 the Individual disclosed to a counselor in the
DOE contractor’s Occupational Medicine (OM) department that he wanted assistance with his
alcohol use. Ex. 10 at 51. As a result of that disclosure, the counselor had the Individual undergo
a phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test,3 which came back positive at 1578 ng/mL. Id. Due to his test
results, the Individual’s employer-initiated Fitness for Duty (FFD) procedures and reported the
Individual’s FFD evaluation to DOE. Id. at 53; Ex. 7 (incident report filed by OM). After receiving
this information, the Local Security Office (LSO) requested that the Individual complete a Letter
of Interrogatory (2025 LOI). Ex. 8. Upon receipt of the Individual’s response to the 2025 LOI, the
LSO asked the Individual to undergo a psychological evaluation in June 2025, by a DOE-
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.
3 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 10 at
68.
- 2 -
consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist), which resulted in a finding that the Individual met
sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition (DSM-5) criteria
for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), moderate, in early remission. Ex. 10 at 55.
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 fourteen exhibits (Ex. 1–14). The Individual submitted six exhibits (Ex. A–F). The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of three additional witnesses.
Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-25-0212 (Tr.). The LSO called the DOE Psychologist 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 “diagnosis . . . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(d). In
citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the DOE Psychologist’s June 2025 diagnosis that the
Individual suffered from AUD, moderate, in early remission. Ex. 1 at 5. The aforementioned
allegation justifies 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
Around 2016, the Individual’s then-wife expressed concern about his alcohol consumption. Ex. 14
at 139, 152. At the time, the Individual consumed three to eight beers in a sitting five or six days
per week. Id. at 139. The Individual decided to seek counseling for his alcohol use at that time
because “he thought it would help his marriage.” Id. The Individual saw a psychotherapist once a
week for thirty-five weeks from June 2016 to April 2017. Id. at 155–56. The psychotherapist did
not diagnose the Individual with any condition, but the Individual followed the psychotherapist’s
recommendation of sobriety while he was being treated. Id.; Tr. at 67. The Individual and his then-
wife divorced in March of 2017. Ex. 14 at 154.
The Individual began to consume alcohol again because he believed he could safely consume
alcohol socially. Tr. at 67. He would consume beer while on dates and sometimes consume beers
on a Friday or Saturday between two and four weekends a month. Ex. 10 at 52. In November 2019,
the Individual and his ex-wife had an argument about a childcare matter. Ex. 14 at 138, 153. There
was no physical violence involved, but in December 2019, the ex-wife filed a restraining order
against the Individual, raising concerns about the Individual’s past alcohol use and alleging that
he was consuming alcohol and driving. Id. at 153. The Individual was required to install an ignition
interlock device in his car and attend substance abuse classes. Id. The Individual completed the
classes, and there were no positive readings by the ignition interlock device. Ex. 9 at 41–42.
Around October of 2024, the Individual began to feel that the amount of alcohol he was consuming
was unhealthy and reached out to OM about his concerns. Ex. 8 at 29; Tr. at 42. The Individual
“wasn’t feeling happy” and “just physically . . . wasn’t feeling well.” Tr. at 42. The Individual told
the DOE Psychologist that starting in 2021, he consumed between one and three twelve-ounce
beers on three to five nights of the week and on two to three weeknights he consumed one or two
high proof fifty-mL shooters.4 Ex. 10 at 53. The Individual had an appointment with an OM
therapist on October 17, 2024, where he asked for assistance with his alcohol use. Id. at 51. On the
same day, the Individual underwent a PEth test, which came back positive at 1578 ng/mL.5 Id. The
Individual began abstaining from alcohol on October 22, 2024. Id. at 54; Tr. at 44. OM began an
FFD evaluation of the Individual on November 4, 2024. Ex. 7 at 27. On November 18, 2024, a
second PEth test was administered, which came back positive at 38 ng/mL. Ex. 10 at 54. OM also
administered weekly breathalyzer tests on the Individual, which all returned negative results. Id.
(record of the DOE Psychologist’s conversation with the OM director indicating that the Individual
had passed all alcohol-related testing administered by OM); Ex. A (carbon copies of the
4 One standard shot is approximately 1.5 ounces or 44 mL. What Is A Standard Drink?,
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohols-effects-health/what-standard-drink (last accessed Apr. 9, 2026).
5 The DOE Psychologist explained that she understood this result to have been indicative of “heavy” drinking or
“chronic excess alcohol consumption,” citing a 2018 article by Ulwelling and Smith and the 2022 Basel Convention
on PEth. Ex. 10 at 48–49.
- 4 -
Individual’s urine and breath tests between June 6, 2025 and October 7, 2025)6; Tr. at 69. The
Individual also testified that it was his understanding that if any of the alcohol testing that OM
administered came back positive, he would be immediately terminated and would not have passed
FFD. Tr. at 69–70. While he was in FFD, the Individual had a check-in phone call with the OM
Director “every couple of weeks.” Id. at 68–69. The Individual successfully completed FFD on
October 7, 2025. Ex. F (letter from OM indicating the closure of the FFD process); Tr. at 18
(testimony of the Individual’s supervisor that it was his understanding that the Individual
successfully completed FFD).
Around the time that the Individual stopped consuming alcohol, the OM Director recommended
that the Individual attend alcohol education programming through his employer’s employee
assistance program (EAP). Tr. at 44. In December 2024, the Individual began to attend one course,
and he received a certificate for completing that course on January 30, 2025. Ex. C (certificate
showing completion of alcohol education course); Ex. E (letter from EAP detailing the Individual’s
participation). After completing that course, he began attending another EAP course focused on
providing participants additional time to “explore their relationship with alcohol” and learn coping
skills. Ex. E. The Individual received a certificate for completing twelve weeks in this course in
May 2025 and has attended the course intermittently since that time. Ex. B (showing attendance
in the second EAP course, including several months between June 2025 and February 2026 where
the Individual did not attend any classes and several months where he attended multiple classes);
Ex. D (certificate showing completion of twelve weeks in the second EAP course); Ex. E (letter
from EAP therapist confirming use of EAP services, including classes through March 2026). The
Individual testified that he enjoys going to the second course because of the bond the attendees
have because of their shared workplace and experiences. Tr. at 51–52. The EAP therapist who ran
both courses testified that the Individual was quiet when he first attended the classes, and, over
time, he became “much more open and interactive.” Id. at 32–33.
The Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist on June 22, 2025. Ex. 10. As part of his
evaluation, the Individual underwent a PEth test in June 2025. Id. at 53–54. The PEth test came
back negative. Id.
After the Individual completed the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist issued a report in which she
concluded that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, moderate, in early
remission. Id. at 55. In order for the Individual to show rehabilitation from the AUD, the DOE
Psychologist stated that the Individual should: (1) complete counseling one time per month to
include “coping skills surrounding alcohol use” for a period of one year; and (2) maintain
abstinence as corroborated by monthly negative PEth test results. Id. In order to show reformation,
the Individual would need to “complete monthly PEth testing for a total of 18 months and
demonstrate lifestyle changes with effective coping mechanisms.” Id.
6 The Individual provided the carbon copies that he had of these tests. However, many of the documents were illegible
or did not show a result.
Additionally, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual’s breath tests could come back negative, even if he
was consuming alcohol, because the tests were typically completed on a weekly basis. Tr. at 83. She also stated that
the urinalysis tests show alcohol use in the prior twelve to eighty hours, and, therefore, the Individual’s urinalysis tests
could also be negative even if he was consuming alcohol. Id. at 85–86.
- 5 -
The Individual testified that he had not consumed alcohol since October 2024 and had no desire
to resume his consumption of alcohol. Tr. at 44, 48. He also said that he believes that his sobriety
is “something that continually needs to be thought about . . . worked on, self-reflected to maintain.”
Id. at 54. Since he has stopped consuming alcohol, the Individual feels that he sleeps better, his
personal and professional relationships are better, and he is happier. Id. at 48. He feels more
energetic, and he can think more clearly. Id. at 49. He spends more time helping his school-aged
child with her homework when she is in his custody, and he has time for his own hobbies when
she stays with her mother. Id. at 50, 71.
The Individual remarried about one month prior to the hearing. Id. at 59. He has known his new
wife for about three years, and according to the Individual, she is supportive of his decision to
abstain from consuming alcohol. Id. at 59–60. There is no alcohol kept in his home. Id. at 65.
When asked why he did not undergo monthly PEth tests as recommended by the DOE
Psychologist, the Individual stated that he did not have a primary care physician and did not like
blood draws, which PEth tests require. Id. at 58. He had asked the OM Director if OM could
perform additional PEth testing for him, but he was told that OM was unable to conduct those tests
for him. Id. at 70.
The Individual’s supervisor testified that he had been the Individual’s direct supervisor for more
than five years and in that time, he typically saw the Individual multiple times a day. Id. at 12–13.
The supervisor stated that before the Individual stopped consuming alcohol the supervisor had
“some suspicion that he could have been drinking a little more than he should have” “based on his
appearance.” Id. at 14–15. After the Individual self-reported his alcohol use and started attending
EAP classes, the supervisor began to notice that the Individual handled himself differently, but
when asked at the hearing, he was unable to explain how the Individual’s behavior had changed.
Id. at 14. The Individual told his supervisor that he does not plan to consume alcohol in the future.
Id. at 17.
The Individual’s coworker testified that they had worked together for about five years. Id. at 22–
23. The coworker said that prior to the Individual’s abstinence from alcohol, he would sometimes
appear to be hungover when he came to work in the morning. Id. at 24. After the Individual stopped
consuming alcohol, she thought he looked healthier at work. Id. The Individual told his coworker
that he does not plan to consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 25.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the hearing testimony she would still
diagnose the Individual with AUD, moderate, in early remission. Id. at 75. She explained that even
though the Individual had testified that he had not consumed any alcohol since she evaluated him
in June 2025, she did not feel that there was sufficient object evidence to corroborate his testimony.
Id. at 75, 77. She stated that the Individual was “doing all of the behavioral things,” but the lack
of PEth tests means there is not sufficient scientific evidence to say that he has not been consuming
alcohol. Id. at 78–79. The DOE Psychologist testified that she believed the Individual’s testimony
that he had not consumed alcohol and was doing well because (1) he was able to talk about his
triggers; (2) he took accountability for his actions in a way that he had not when she evaluated him
in June 2025; and (3) his witnesses testified that they could see a difference in the Individual at
work. Id. at 80.
- 6 -
Although she did not feel it was appropriate to update her diagnosis, the DOE Psychologist opined
that she believed the Individual was rehabilitated from his AUD because he had completed the
treatment she recommended and was abstaining, “per his report,” from alcohol consumption. Id.
at 81. The DOE Psychologist went on to say that the Individual had a “good” prognosis because
he has “done a lot of the demonstration [sic] rehabilitation,” “but it wasn’t quite meeting the
recommendation that was asked.” Id. at 83. She testified that although there is a difference between
counseling like she recommended and the kind of psychoeducational classes that the Individual
participated in, the distinction “wasn’t very clear in the recommendations” set forth in her report,
and she believed that the Individual had “done the work” “that was the point of the counseling.”
Id. at 82. However, even though the DOE Psychologist thought that the classes impacted the
Individual in the way she hoped counseling would, she did not consider the psychoeducational
classes to be treatment. Id. at 87–88.
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.
Mitigating factor (a) does not apply to the security concern raised here. According to the testimony
of the DOE Psychologist, the Individual’s AUD, is still only in early remission. Therefore, at the
time of the hearing it was an active concern, and I cannot say that a sufficient amount of time has
passed. The security concern here is the Individual’s AUD, rather than a behavior, and, therefore,
it cannot be resolved based on its frequency or the circumstances surrounding it.
- 7 -
The Individual acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use and provided evidence of actions taken
to overcome the problem. However, while the alcohol testing results that the Individual provided
showed some proof that the Individual was not, at the very least, consuming alcohol at the rate he
was before his self-report, the provided testing did not fully cover the period of time during which
the Individual testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol, and the Individual provided no
testing or other evidence that specifically corroborated his testimony that he had not consumed
alcohol in the five months between completion of his FFD and the hearing. Further, during the
Individual’s last attempt at abstinence from alcohol consumption, he began to attempt to consume
alcohol socially again shortly after he stopped seeing his psychotherapist. As the Individual’s
participation in alcohol-related programing decreases, I have increased concern about the
likelihood of reoccurring problems. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (explaining that the DOE officials
should consider “the likelihood of continuation or recurrence”). Therefore, I cannot say he has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with the treatment
recommendations, and the security concerns are not resolved pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
Even assuming that the Individual’s participation in the EAP courses constituted counseling or
treatment, which the DOE Psychologist testified was not the case, he has a previous history of
treatment and relapse. In 2016 and 2017, the Individual was in regular therapy for his depression
and alcohol use. During that time, he did not consume alcohol on the advice of his therapist. After
the Individual stopped his therapy sessions, he resumed alcohol consumption, which would be
considered a relapse. Therefore, mitigating factor (c) does not apply.
Mitigating factor (d) does not apply because the Individual has not successfully completed a
treatment program and required aftercare. Further, as explained above, the breath tests and urine
tests that he provided are not sufficient to establish a pattern of abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations because they do not satisfactorily establish abstinence during the
period in which the tests were administered or fully cover the period of time that the DOE
Psychologist recommended the Individual provide testing to show his abstinence from alcohol.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not 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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve all of the security
concerns set forth in the Summary of Security Concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the
Individual’s access authorization should not 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