PSH-26-0003

*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: October 8, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0003
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 20, 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
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should be granted.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position that requires that he hold a security
clearance. In connection with the Individual’s request for access authorization, the DOE reviewed
the results of a background investigation conducted by the Office of Personnel Management
(OPM), the Individual’s responses to an October 30, 2024, Questionnaire for National Security
Positions (QNSP), and the Individual’s responses during an Enhanced Subject Interview (ESI)
with an OPM investigator in January 2025, which revealed that the Individual had a history of
alcohol-related incidents, including two arrests for Driving Under the Influence (DUI). Exhibit
(Ex.) 4 at 19–20; Ex. 9 at 148, 150–54.2
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s alcohol-related incidents, the local security
office (LSO) referred the Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (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 The DOE’s exhibits were combined and submitted in a single, 303-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
Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview of the Individual in July 2025 and issued a report
(the Report) of his findings. Ex. 5. During the evaluation, the Individual admitted that from June
2021 to July 2024, he consumed “anywhere from 6 beers to 12 beers depending on whether it was
a weeknight or a weekend night.” Id. at 29. He also admitted that from July 16, 2024, to July 27,
2024, he consumed 18 to 20, 12-ounce beers, per day. Id. at 28. Based on his 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 Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 34.
In September 2025, the LSO informed the Individual, in a Notification Letter, that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his 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 six witnesses: the Individual, the Individual’s wife,
the Individual’s mother, the Individual’s Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, the Individual’s
friend, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0003 (Tr.).
Counsel for the DOE submitted nine exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 9. The Individual
submitted eighteen exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through R.
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 away from work, such as driving
while under the influence . . . or other incidents of concern . . . ,” “habitual or binge consumption
of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,” 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(a), (c)‒(d).
In invoking Guideline G, the LSO cited the following information:
A. In October 2001, the Individual was arrested and charged with DUI. During his January
2025 ESI, the Individual admitted that before this arrest, he consumed “several shots of
vodka” before he attempted to drive and got into an auto accident;
B. In July 2024, the Individual was arrested and charged with a second DUI. The Individual
crashed into a utility pole and woke up in the hospital two days later, with a blood alcohol
content (BAC) of .40%;
3
C. During his January 2025 ESI, the Individual admitted that the day of his July 2024 DUI,
he checked himself into a hospital, and after waiting two hours, he left the hospital and
continued drinking heavily for the next several hours;
D. During his July 2025 psychological evaluation, the Individual admitted to the DOE
Psychologist that from June 2021 to July 2024, he consumed six to 12 beers daily,
depending on whether it was a weeknight or a weekend night, and from July 16, 2024, to
July 27, 2024, he consumed 18 to 20, 12-ounce beers per day;
E. In his August 2025 Report, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual met sufficient
DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Severe, In Early Remission, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
Ex. 1 at 5. The information cited above 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
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
Before his October 2001 arrest for DUI, the Individual, who was in college at the time, was at a
party, during which he consumed “several shots of vodka,” before getting into his car and
attempting to drive home. Ex. 9 at 151. While driving home, the Individual got into a car accident,
after which he was arrested and charged with DUI. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that in 2024, he realized he had a problem with alcohol, but
he did not realize how bad it was, and his wife urged him to obtain alcohol treatment. Tr. at 82;
Ex. 5 at 30. From March 2024 to May 2024, the Individual received alcohol counseling at a local
4
addiction treatment facility, three days per week. Ex. 9 at 137; Tr. at 81. The Individual recalled
attending group meetings, during which he learned about the triggers to drink alcohol, and the use
of alcohol as a coping measure. Tr. at 81. The Individual’s primary physician prescribed him
Naltrexone to help treat his cravings for alcohol. Ex. 9. at 153; Tr. at 90–91. Although the
Individual was attending this program three days per week, he did not believe the treatment was
working for him, and he was not fully committed to stop drinking alcohol, so he stopped attending
the program. Tr. at 82; Ex. 9 at 152.
On July 27, 2024, the Individual wanted to obtain medical treatment for his alcohol use, so he went
to a hospital emergency room and told the hospital staff that he needed help, because he had “been
drinking too much.” Tr. at 79; Ex. 9 at 150, 194. After waiting in the emergency room for
approximately two hours, the Individual got tired of waiting, left the hospital, and continued to
drink alcohol. Tr. at 79, Ex. 9 at 150, 223. Around 5:00 p.m. on July 27, 2024, the Individual was
having dinner with his parents, and then woke up in a hospital, with no memory of how he got
there. Tr. at 79; Ex. 9 at 150. During his ESI, the Individual reported that hospital staff told him
that after he finished having dinner with his parents at a restaurant, he attempted to drive his car
home and crashed his car into a utility pole. Ex. 9 at 150–51. He was also told that while he was
treated at a hospital, his BAC was measured at .40% and he was arrested for DUI. Id. at 151. After
this arrest, the Individual was required by the court to install an ignition interlock device in his car,
which would prevent him from starting his car if the device measured his BAC at .02 g/210L or
higher, for six months. Tr. at 71; Ex. 7 at 137; Ex. 9 at 151. The Individual was also required to
complete an Alcohol and Drug Safety Action Program (ADSAP), a safety awareness program. Ex.
9 at 151; Ex. O; Ex. D.3
In late July 2024 the Individual started attending AA meetings, five days a week. Ex. 9 at 151–52.
But in September 2024, a hurricane hit his area, and the AA meetings were suspended. Ex. 9 at
152; Ex. 5 at 30. Because the Individual was no longer attending AA meetings, he resumed
consuming alcohol. Ex. 5 at 32.
On December 3, 2024, the Individual’s ignition interlock device detected alcohol on his breath
because he had consumed “several drinks” of alcohol the night before, and he could not drive his
car to work because his car would not start. Ex. 5 at 32; Tr. at 71–72. He reported that he felt
humiliated, so he decided to stop drinking alcohol and he resumed attending AA that evening. Ex.
5 at 32. He attended AA meetings, two times per day. Id.; Tr. at 84. During his January 2025 ESI,
the Individual acknowledged that his alcohol use has had a negative impact on his life, that since
resuming AA in December 2024, he was about to start the 4th step of the AA program, and that he
intended to stay sober. Ex. 9 at 151–52.
The Individual further testified that he had attended AA continuously since December 2024, and
since October 2025 he has attended AA meetings four or five times a week, both virtually and in
person. Tr. at 75. The Individual explained that, when compared to his participation in AA in 2024,
he now felt a connection to the other AA participants, and he could relate to their struggle with
alcoholism. Id. at 82–83. The Individual submitted AA attendance sheets showing that he attended
AA in person, approximately two to three times a week, from October 15, 2025, to March 8, 2026.
Ex. H; Ex. Q. He did not obtain records for his attendance at virtual meetings. Tr. at 83. At the
3 The Individual submitted evidence that the criminal charge related to his July 2024 DUI was resolved in December
2025. Tr. at 73; Ex. I; Ex. J; Ex. K.
5
hearing, the Individual explained that he was currently on step nine of the AA program. Id. at 74–
75. He stated that he enjoyed attending his AA meetings and he intended to continue attending the
program and using his AA sponsor. Id. at 89–90.
In January 2025, the Individual started taking classes as part of the ADSAP, which provided
alcohol education. Tr. at 84–85.4 During the ADSAP, the Individual received four weeks of alcohol
education classes, from January 7, 2025, to February 6, 2025. Ex. D; Ex. P; Tr. at 85. After
completing the ADSAP, the Individual received eight sessions of additional alcohol education at
a local addiction treatment facility. Tr. at 74, 85; Ex. D. From March 13, 2025, to April 17, 2025,
the Individual completed four weeks of “recovery treatment services,” which involved group
discussions about triggers to drink alcohol, “low risk versus high-risk choices” related to alcohol,
and coping measures, and required him to review a workbook and complete reading assignments.
Tr. at 86; Ex. P. The Individual also underwent EtG5 testing, in February 2025 and April 2025, the
result of which was negative for alcohol, as part of the classes he received at his local addiction
facility. Tr. at 91; Ex. B.
From March 4, 2025, until June 10, 2025, the Individual attended five alcohol counseling sessions
with a licensed counselor, provided through his employer’s Employee Assistance Program (EAP).
Tr. at 87–88; Ex. E. The Individual explained that he talked to the counselor about how he could
maintain his sobriety, how he was doing “emotionally,” and his AA meetings. Tr. at 88. The
Individual submitted a letter from his counselor, which indicated that the Individual was
“motivated and cooperative” during his sessions, that he reported feeling healthier, and that he was
“managing stress without alcohol.” Ex. E.
During his July 2025 psychological evaluation, the Individual explained that after losing a job in
July 2024, he felt sad and he self-medicated by consuming alcohol. Ex. 5 at 31. He reported that
from 2021, until his July 2024 DUI arrest, he drank daily and “anywhere from 6 beers to 12 beers
depending on whether it was a weeknight or a weekend night.” Id. at 29. He reported that he
stopped drinking alcohol as of December 3, 2024, and resumed attending AA that evening. Id. at
32. The Individual showed the DOE Psychologist his 24-hour, 30-day, 60-day, 90-day, and 6-
month AA chips. Id. at 31. The DOE Psychologist noted in his Report that although the Individual
completed the ADSAP, that program was a safety awareness program, and was not alcohol
treatment. Id. at 30. The Report also indicated that the Individual was still using Naltrexone to treat
his urges to drink alcohol. Id. at 31.
As part of the psychological evaluation, on July 31, 2025, the Individual underwent
Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)6 testing, the result of which was negative for alcohol consumption and
4 The Individual explained that he enrolled in the ADSAP on November 8, 2024, but the classes did not begin until
January 2025. Tr. at 85; Ex. P.
5 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.
6 The Report indicates that a PEth test provides an indication of alcohol consumption over the last month, and “detects
any significant alcohol use of the past three to four weeks.” Ex. 5 at 32. “PEth results below 20ng/mL are reported as
a ‘Negative’ finding and indicate light drinking or abstinence.” Id.
6
was consistent with the Individual’s claim that he had stopped drinking. Ex. 5 at 32, 38–39. The
DOE Psychologist found that, because the Individual reported consuming “6–12 beers per day and
up to 20 beers per day” immediately before his July 2024 DUI, but had abstained from alcohol for
the prior eight months, he met the DSM-5-TR criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Severe, In Early
Remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 32, 34. To show
adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his AUD, Severe, the DOE Psychologist recommended
that the Individual continue participating in the AA program, attend at least four AA meetings per
week, for an additional four months, continue working the 12 steps of the program with an AA
sponsor, and abstain from alcohol through December 2025, supported by monthly PEth testing. Id.
at 34.
At the hearing, the Individual’s AA sponsor testified that he had sponsored the Individual since
January 2025. Tr. at 46–47. He attends AA meetings with the Individual once per month and they
talk a couple of times per week. Id. at 60, 62. He also sees the Individual in person, outside of their
AA meetings, once a week. Id. at 62. The AA sponsor explained that he and the Individual review
the steps of AA program and that the Individual was on step 12 of AA, as of the date of the hearing.
Id. at 50, 57–58. The Individual submitted evidenced he received eight chips from the AA program.
Ex. C; Ex. F. The Individual’s AA sponsor explained that each of the Individual’s AA chips
represent a “continuous time of sobriety,” based on a person’s self-reporting of how long they have
been sober. Tr. at 59–60. During the AA meetings he attends with the Individual, he observes the
Individual share his experiences with alcohol and interact with other AA participants after
meetings. Id. at 61.
The Individual’s mother and wife testified to their awareness of the Individual’s participation in
AA and indicated that they both attended an AA meeting with the Individual to celebrate one year
of his sobriety. Tr. at 17, 33. They both stated that the Individual attended AA meetings several
times a week and was following the 12 steps of the program. Id. The Individual’s wife and the
Individual’s mother each submitted a letter summarizing the Individual’s personal improvement
since he stopped drinking alcohol. Ex. L; Ex. M. The Individual’s wife also explained that since
the Individual stopped drinking alcohol, he had become a better father to his children, and she
believed the Individual would stick to this course of treatment because “he likes who he is” now.
Tr. at 20–22. The Individual’s friend testified that he had known the Individual for 14 years and
that he was also aware of the Individual’s participation in AA. Id. at 38. The friend explained that
since the Individual resumed attending AA, the Individual had admitted that he had an alcohol
problem. Id. at 42. The friend also attended an AA meeting with the Individual to mark one year
of the Individual’s participation in the program. Id. The friend also explained that the Individual
expressed to him that he intends to stay sober. Id. at 41.
The Individual further testified that on December 3, 2024, after his ignition interlock device
prevented him from starting his car, he knew that he was ruining his life and that if he did not make
a change, he was “going to lose everything.” Tr. at 72. He explained that in addition to the alcohol
treatment he had received, he knows that he can use the services available through his employer’s
EAP for help, and his local addiction treatment facility told him that he is welcome to return to
their program if he needs their help. Id. at 90. He also intends to continue using his Naltrexone. Id.
Finally, the Individual submitted documentary evidence, to support his testimony concerning his
abstinence from alcohol. Id. at 91. The Individual underwent PEth testing in October 2025,
November 2025, December 2025, January 2026, February 2026, and March 2026, the results of
which were negative for alcohol consumption. Ex. A; Ex. N; Ex. R.
7
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing
and reviewing the Individual’s exhibits, he believed the Individual was rehabilitated from his
AUD, Severe. Tr. at 98. The Individual received alcohol education services through the ADSAP,
and he also received alcohol counseling, through the additional classes he took after the ADSAP
and through his sessions with his counselor. Id. at 99. He noted that the Individual chose AA as
his primary manner of rehabilitation from his AUD, and he seemed to be taking the program
seriously. Id. at 95. He also stated that it was a very good sign that the Individual was attending
AA meetings, in person, several days a week. Id. at 99–100. Finally, the DOE Psychologist
explained that he credited the Individual with abstinence from alcohol since December 2024, and
that he had exceeded his treatment recommendations. Id. at 94, 97–98. He stated the Individual’s
prognosis was good. Id. at 96.
V. Analysis
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that 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; 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.
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions tendered in
this case and the testimony of the witnesses presented at the hearing. After due deliberation, I have
determined that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by his history
of alcohol-related incidents and problematic alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(b) of the
Adjudicative Guidelines.
The Individual testified that although he knew that his level of alcohol consumption was a problem
before his July 2024 arrest for DUI, he did not recognize the severity of his problem until
December 3, 2024, when his ignition interlock device prevented him from driving his car to work.
The Individual also acknowledged that his history of maladaptive alcohol consumption included
prior failed attempts to abstain from alcohol because he was not fully committed doing so. He also
8
admitted during his January 2025 ESI that his alcohol consumption had a negative impact on his
life during. The testimony of the Individual’s wife, mother, and friend also supports that the
Individual admitted that he had a problem with alcohol and is now committed to his sobriety.
The Individual has demonstrated that he took actions to address his maladaptive alcohol
consumption. Since December 2024, the Individual resumed attending AA and he submitted AA
attendance records to support his testimony that he attended at least two to three AA meetings per
week, in person and virtually, from October 2025 to March 2026. The Individual’s wife and mother
also testified to the Individual’s commitment to the AA program and that he was following the
steps of the program. The Individual has worked with an AA sponsor since January 2025. The AA
sponsor testified that the Individual was an active participant during AA meetings, that he works
through AA’s steps with the Individual, and that the Individual has interacted with other
participants after AA meetings. Since January 2025, the Individual has received alcohol education
through the ADSAP and he received additional alcohol-related counseling, which included
discussions about triggers to drink alcohol, and coping measures that do not involve consuming
alcohol. He also received three months of counseling sessions, with a licensed counselor, through
his employer’s EAP. The counseling sessions included a discussion of how the Individual could
maintain his sobriety.
Furthermore, the Individual submitted two negative Etg tests, dated February 2025 and April 2025,
and six negative PEth tests, dated from October 2025 to March 2026, to support his testimony that
he abstained from alcohol. The DOE Psychologist explained that at the time of his July 2025
psychological evaluation, he credited the Individual with having abstained from alcohol for eight
months. I find the Individual credible as to his testimony that he stopped drinking on December 3,
2024, after he felt humiliated because his ignition interlock device prevented him from driving
himself to work. The Individual underwent intermittent alcohol testing between January 2025 and
July 2025, the results of which were negative, and the testimony of his mother and wife supports
that he has not consumed alcohol. Therefore, I agree with the DOE Psychologist’s opinion, that
since December 2024, the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
abstinence from alcohol for approximately 15 months, which exceeds the DOE Psychologist’s
treatment recommendations. Finally, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual was
rehabilitated from his AUD, Severe, and that his prognosis was good.
I conclude that the Individual has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, has
provided sufficient evidence that he has taken actions to overcome the problem, and has
demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol sufficient to mitigate the
stated Guideline G concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b).
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 granting him
a 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
9
should be granted. 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