PSH-26-0009

*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 21, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0009
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 4, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
________________________
James P. Thompson III, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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 not be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires a security clearance.
In February 2025, he entered alcohol treatment. As a result, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO)
requested that a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) evaluate the Individual. Based
on information gathered by the LSO, including a July 2025 report (Report) produced by the DOE
Psychologist, the LSO informed the Individual by letter (Notification Letter) that reliable
information created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance. In
an attachment to the Notification Letter, entitled Summary of Security Concerns (SSC), the LSO
explained that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to 10
C.F.R. Part 710. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed me as the
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
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 -
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual provided his own testimony and the testimony of his work
mentor (mentor), fiancée (fiancée), Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor (sponsor), therapist
(therapist), and Employee Assistance Program counselor (EAP counselor). See Transcript of
Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0009 (Tr.). The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE
Psychologist. The Individual submitted sixteen exhibits, marked Exhibits A through P. The LSO
submitted sixteen exhibits, marked Exhibits 1 through 16.2
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for concern regarding the Individual’s eligibility for a security clearance. Exhibit (Ex.) 1.
Guideline G provides that “[e]xcessive 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 “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 . . .”; “[d]iagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental
health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychiatrist . . .) of alcohol use disorder
. . . ”; and “alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations,
after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c), (d), (f). The SSC cites the following
information. The DOE Psychologist’s June 2025 Report concluded that the Individual met
sufficient criteria under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition,
Text Revision, for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Severe, without adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. In early 2025, the Individual consumed “a few half
pints of whiskey” each day over a period of twelve days. Id. In 2019, a different DOE-consultant
psychologist concluded the Individual met the criteria for AUD, Severe. Id. In October 2014, the
Individual was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) after consuming three
“large whiskey drinks.” Id. Lastly, in December 2005, the Individual was arrested and charged
with DUI after consuming five to seven alcoholic beverages. Id. The cited information 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 of the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security
clearance. See 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).
2 References to the LSO exhibits 1–14 are to the exhibit number and the Bates number located in the top right corner
of each exhibit page. The remaining two were submitted as separate .pdf documents, and reference to them will be by
exhibit and page number within each document.
- 3 -
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 or her eligibility for an access authorization.
The 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.
§ 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
This case represents the Individual’s second Part 710 hearing, the first of which occurred when the
Individual was previously employed by the same DOE contractor that employs him now. See Ex.
16 (Personnel Security Decision, OHA Case No. PSH-19-0049 (2019)). The previous hearing
involved security concerns that arose based on the Individual’s alcohol consumption, his diagnosis
of AUD, Severe, and his 2005 and 2014 DUIs. Id. at 2. Prior to that hearing, the Individual
completed several alcohol rehabilitation programs—one in 2014 and two in 2016. Id. at 4; Ex. 7
at 25; Ex. 9 at 52 (Individual noting that he also received a diagnosis of AUD in 2014). During
that hearing, the Individual testified that he intended to permanently abstain from alcohol
consumption. Ex. 16 at 3–4. Then, as now, he did not dispute the facts regarding the DUIs outlined
in the SSC. See id. at 1–7 and Ex. 2 at 10–11. He also provided evidence of a painful chronic
medical condition, and the DOE psychologist who evaluated him in 2019 opined that alcohol
exacerbated this condition and the pain from this condition would present a “looming threat” to
the Individual’s abstinence. Ex. 16 at 6. The present record demonstrates a significant history of
medical conditions and surgeries. Ex. 9 at 53 (describing fractured vertebrae, a knee replacement,
and a colon disease). Turning back to the 2019 hearing, the Individual also presented evidence that
he had been attending individual counseling and AA meetings. Ex. 16 at 4–5. He testified his last
alcohol use consisted of consuming ten alcoholic beverages in one sitting, and it occurred after
DOE notified him that his alcohol use was a security concern. Id. at 5. He characterized the
decision to use alcohol at that time as one of the worst mistakes of his life. Id. During that hearing,
he asserted that he had since dealt with his alcohol problem. Id. He also admitted that he had not
been truthful with the DOE psychologist who evaluated him regarding amount and frequency of
alcohol use. Id. at 4. After the hearing, the Administrative Judge decided that the Individual should
not be granted a security clearance. Id. at 7.
In 2023, the DOE contractor rehired the Individual. Tr. at 117–18. During the process to obtain a
security clearance, the Individual provided a February 2023 written response to a Letter of
Interrogatory regarding his alcohol use, in which he reported being sober since December 2021—
approximately fourteen months. Ex. 8 at 33. He denied having a current alcohol problem. Id. at
37. The Individual was granted a security clearance in 2023. Tr. at 118.
Approximately eighteen months later, in March 2025, the Individual entered an intensive
outpatient alcohol treatment program (IOP) following a “relapse while going through a [medical
- 4 -
condition] flair-up, an injured back, and dealing with [k]idney stones.” Ex. 6 at 22; Ex. 7 at 24. He
also admitted that he had been consuming alcohol for several months, which culminated in a
twelve-day binge during which he consumed “roughly 2 pints of liquor a day.” Ex. 6 at 22. He
testified that, prior to his recent relapse, he had been sober for four years, which significantly
overestimated the length of his sobriety from December 2021. Tr. at 138. He completed the IOP
near the end of November 2025. Ex. A at 4 (letter from provider explaining that he completed 76
day of IOP treatment in April 2025 and then returned in October 2025 to complete a grand total of
90 days in November 2025).
He also reported in March 2025 that he had been sober approximately one month. Ex. 7 at 25
(providing February 3, 2025, as his sobriety date). During his June 2025 evaluation with the DOE
Psychologist, the Individual reported that, approximately two months before he sought treatment,
he had been consuming a pint of distilled spirits every three days. Ex. 9 at 54. He also reported
that he had been attending AA three times a week and working the Twelve Steps with his sponsor.
Id. at 51, 54. The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual met the criteria for AUD,
Severe. Id. at 57–58 (referring to the “extended history of maladaptive alcohol use” spanning 2005
to 2025). The DOE Psychologist also concluded that the Individual’s AUD was in early remission
because the Individual had not consumed alcohol since February 2025. Id. at 55. As support for
that conclusion, the DOE Psychologist relied on a negative contemporaneous Phosphatidylethanol
(PEth)3 test result that indicated the Individual had consumed little to no alcohol in the preceding
month. Id. The DOE Psychologist opined that to demonstrate successful rehabilitation, the
Individual should complete twelve months of alcohol abstinence documented by monthly PEth
tests, attend AA three times per week, work the Twelve Steps with a sponsor, continue with all
aftercare requirements from the IOP provider, avail himself of his employer’s Employee
Assistance Program (EAP), and pursue “psychotherapeutic intervention” to develop ways to cope
with his medical conditions without alcohol. Id. at 60.
Based on the above recommendations, the Individual began attending individual counseling with
a psychotherapist in September 2025. Tr. at 41 (first attending once a week and then changing to
every other week in November 2025). His therapy focused on managing pain related to his medical
issues and addressing the underlying psychological issues contributing to his alcohol use. Id. at 42,
47. The therapist testified that the Individual made “significant progress” and followed all of her
recommendations. Id. at 43. The therapist opined that she had advised the Individual to remain
abstinent and modify his environment by working the Twelve Steps, interacting with his sponsor,
engaging in group therapy, and interacting with people who do not consume alcohol. Id. at 44. She
testified that he had established a clear pattern of abstinence in accordance with her treatment
recommendations by doing the same up to the hearing date. Id. at 43–44. She opined that the
Individual stated that he intends to remain sober because the consequences of a relapse would be
“extremely painful,” which she believed demonstrated good insight and awareness of the
3 As the Report explains,
PEth is a marker of alcohol exposure to the body. PEth does not occur naturally in the body so
elevated PEth levels are evidence of alcohol exposure. Alcohol binds to the red blood cell membrane
creating PEth. PEth declines as red blood cells degrade and by enzymatic action, so PEth reflects
the average use of alcohol over the previous 28–30 days.
Ex. 9 at 55.
- 5 -
consequences of maladaptive alcohol use. Id. The therapist concluded that the Individual had a
favorable prognosis given his demonstrated insight, the supportive relationship with his fiancée,
and his understanding that alcohol use could lead to losing his job. Id. at 44–45.
The fiancée testified that the Individual informed her in 2022 when they started dating that he was
a recovering alcoholic, which she appreciated. Id. at 88. She left her ex-husband because he was
an alcoholic. See id. at 67. She reported that the Individual had remained sober the first few years
of their relationship, and she never saw any indication he had consumed alcohol prior to the twelve-
day binge. Id. at 66, 74.
She stated they discussed the binge, and the Individual told her it was his first alcohol consumption
during their relationship. Id. at 74–75. However, the Individual later testified that his fiancée failed
to recall their discussion about his alcohol use during the months leading up to the binge and
blamed her poor memory on stress. Id. at 139, 142. What is not in dispute is that she threatened to
leave the Individual if he did not seek treatment. Id. at 67, 74. The fiancée testified that the
Individual had remained sober since entering treatment and that she supports his recovery. Id. at
68–69.
The AA sponsor confirmed that the Individual attended AA in person twice a week. Id. at 91. The
Individual actively participated in the meetings, worked the Twelve Steps, and appeared “dead
serious” about using the program in his recovery. Id. at 92.
At the March 2026 hearing, the Individual provided eight negative PEth test results that represent
monthly testing from August 2025 through March 2026. Id. at 122; see also Ex. E. He testified
that he had been attending AA since March 2025. Tr. at 124–26. He credited AA with providing
accountability, which requires being honest with the other participants and himself. Id. at 127. He
testified that he had been sober since his twelve-day binge. Id. at 129. The Individual also testified
that his current recovery circumstances are different from prior ones because he has a loving
family, a network of resources, and insight and tools gained through therapy. Id. at 133. He took
advantage of every recovery program recommended to him over the past year to demonstrate he
has recovered from his “terrible mistake.” Id. at 133–34, 136. He acknowledged that he has a
problem with alcohol and that “abstinence and recovery is a lifelong commitment” that will require
AA and therapy. Id. at 135, 137.
The Individual explained that he relapsed in 2024 because of stress related to a family member’s
illness and testified that he had consumed alcohol two times before the twelve-day binge. Id. at
141, 143. When confronted with his report to the DOE Psychologist that he was consuming a pint
of distilled spirits every three days in December 2024, he responded that “it was probably a little
over a half a pint” and “it wasn’t every three days.” Id. at 141–42. He conceded that his memory
is unclear given the stress he was under. Id. at 143. He also admitted that he unsuccessfully
attempted to hide his alcohol use from his fiancée in December 2024. Id. at 143–44.
During the hearing, the Individual contrasted his positive relationship with his fiancée with his
“awful marriage” at the time of the 2019 hearing. Id. at 150. He was then asked to explain why, in
his appeal of the Administrative Judge’s 2019 decision, he made the statement that he was happy
with his life and family. Id.; Ex. 15 at 2. In response, the Individual testified that he was “grabbing
at straws” while seeking his clearance and “wasn’t in a good place yet.” Tr. at 150, 153.
- 6 -
The EAP counselor testified at the hearing that the Individual had enrolled in his employer’s EAP
group treatment programs, which she administered, and that he had been an open, honest, and
active participant who has benefited from the treatment. Id. at 28, 33, 35. The EAP counselor also
testified that he is highly motivated to retain his position with the DOE contractor. Id. at 28, 33,
35. She also explained that he had attended the EAP-provided group alcohol awareness and
education class and a class that supports continued recovery through group participation. Tr. at 29;
Ex. N at 98–99.
As for aftercare, the Individual’s IOP provider provided a letter that indicated he had followed the
IOP’s recommendations for aftercare by participating in external treatment programming that
includes, for example, attending therapy, attending AA with his sponsor, and continuing to provide
clinical evidence of abstinence. Ex. B at 6.
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had met almost all of the Report
recommendations by the hearing date, including participating in twelve months of AA with a
supportive sponsor, following the IOP treatment recommendations, receiving treatment from his
employer’s EAP, and undergoing eight monthly PEth tests, which was the extent possible given
the length of time that had passed between the evaluation and the hearing. Id. at 166–67. The DOE
Psychologist gave the Individual an excellent prognosis assuming he continues his participation in
AA, aftercare, and psychotherapy. Id. at 172. However, if he failed to continue them, as he had in
the past, then his prognosis would be poor. Id. The DOE Psychologist also opined that it is
important that the Individual undergo the remaining recommended PEth tests because they are part
of his ongoing commitment and would support his sobriety. Id. The DOE Psychologist concluded
that the Individual had demonstrated reformation by acknowledging he had a problem with alcohol
and stopping his consumption in February 2025, and that he established rehabilitation based on
the evidence that he had successfully followed all treatment recommendations except completing
the recommended number of PEth tests. Id. at 173 (DOE Psychologist defining reformation as “a
person recognizes that they have a problem with alcohol and have stopped drinking,” and opining
that the Individual met that standard “in February 2025”), 174–75. The DOE Psychologist also
opined that while there had been apparent contradictions regarding what the Individual had shared
with his fiancée regarding his relapse, the Individual had been “trying to be fully honest” with the
DOE Psychologist. Id. at 169. Lastly, when asked whether he would be concerned that the
Individual may try to hide his alcohol use, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual
accepted that he must remain sober and surrounded himself with people who support that goal. Id.
at 170. He said that, as opposed to back in 2020, the Individual has been more transparent because
his alcohol use issues are “not a secret anymore, his alcohol us is out in the open, and he’s taking
productive steps to make sure that he is surrounded by people who he knows he is accountable . .
. .” Id. at 169.
V. ANALYSIS
- 7 -
A. Guideline G Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on alcohol consumption include the
following:
(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 conclude that the Individual has not put forward sufficient evidence to resolve the Guideline G
security concerns. First, I find that ¶ 23(a) does not apply because I do not conclude that the passage
of time, frequency of the conduct, or circumstances are such that the concerning alcohol-related
conduct is unlikely to recur. Given the Individual’s lengthy history of excessive alcohol
consumption, diagnosis of AUD, and multiple relapses despite knowledge that his alcohol use was
incompatible with a security clearance, I do not conclude that the passage of approximately one
year since the Individual’s most recent relapse mitigates the concern. Furthermore, the record
makes clear that the Individual’s tendency to relapse is not infrequent, and his most recent relapse
occurred after approximately three years of abstinence. Finally, there were no unusual
circumstances that the Individual can credibly cite for his relapse. The general stress and medical
conditions he referenced are not unique circumstances. To the extent the stress surrounding his
family member’s health scare triggered his relapse in 2024, his longstanding pattern of relapses
over at least a decade prevents me from finding this was an unusual circumstance that makes a
future relapse unlikely to occur.
Turning to the factors outlined in ¶ 23(b), the Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol
use, although given my above concerns regarding his credibility, as described below, his
acknowledgement provides little confidence that it sincere. The Individual has also provided
evidence of actions taken to overcome his problem, including that he followed the
recommendations of the DOE Psychologist by, for example, attending AA with a sponsor,
individual counseling, and his employer’s treatment programs. He also provided clear evidence of
abstinence for eight consecutive months while following his treatment providers’
- 8 -
recommendations, which establishes a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance
with treatment recommendations.
Notwithstanding the above, however, I conclude that the security concerns are not resolved
pursuant to ¶ 23(b) in light of the frequency of his concerning conduct, the fact that he continues
to provide inaccurate or misleading information regarding his alcohol use, and the likelihood that
he will again relapse. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of “[t]the frequency and
recency of the conduct; . . . the absence or presence of . . . pertinent behavioral changes; . . . the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence; and other relevant and material factors”). On the second
point, the record demonstrates the Individual’s continuing tendency to provide contradictory, and
therefore unreliable, statements regarding his alcohol use. For example, the Individual provided
inaccurate information to the DOE psychologist who evaluated him in 2019. He then
misrepresented the truth regarding his martial relationship when appealing that decision, which he
admitted was motivated by his desire to succeed on appeal (i.e., “grabbing at straws”). More
recently, when he reported his 2025 relapse, he misreported his period of sobriety to the LSO by
overestimating its length. He then reported information regarding his consumption at the time of
the relapse to the DOE Psychologist that conflicted with what he reported to the LSO and on the
hearing date. To the DOE Psychologist, he reported consumption at a rate of a pint of whiskey
every three days for a period of two months preceding his relapse. At the hearing, he minimized
his conduct by reporting that he consumed a lesser quantity and only on two occasions before the
binge. He also provided conflicting testimony to explain why his fiancée’s testimony did not
corroborate his report to the DOE Psychologist or his hearing testimony. His fiancée unequivocally
testified that he had not consumed any alcohol before the twelve-day binge. I do not credit the
Individual’s assertion that his fiancée’s memory was affected by stress. She testified that her ex-
husband was an alcoholic and she threatened to leave the Individual upon learning of the
Individual’s relapse. Clearly, the Individual’s sobriety is important to her. Therefore, I find it
highly unlikely that she would forget that the Individual revealed that he had betrayed her trust
and hid his alcohol consumption leading up to the twelve-day binge. Thus, either he is misstating
the truth that he disclosed it to her, or she is misstating the truth by denying he consumed alcohol
on more than one occasion at the time he relapsed. Given the Individual’s present and continuing
tendency to minimize or provide inaccurate information related to his alcohol use, I conclude that
the Individual misrepresented, at the hearing, what transpired between himself and his fiancée and
that he misrepresented his alcohol consumption to her too. As a result, I do not find the Individual’s
testimony or statements regarding his alcohol use credible and find instead that he is currently
willing to provide misleading or inaccurate information in an effort to retain his security clearance.
In light of these serious doubts as to the Individual’s credibility, I have some skepticism of the
opinions expressed by the therapist and the DOE Psychologist, which both relied in part on the
Individual’s self-report. First, I reject the therapist’s conclusion that the Individual has a favorable
prognosis because it is based on inadequate support. The three prongs that form its basis are the
Individual’s gained insight, his fiancée’s support during recovery, and his fear of losing his
clearance. Looking at the second prong first, as I concluded above, the Individual has demonstrated
that he has not been truthful to his fiancée and therefore I reject the assertion that she is going to
be able to meaningfully support his recovery. The remaining two prongs appear to be founded
upon the insight he gained and awareness of the consequences attendant to consuming alcohol;
however, the record demonstrates the Individual knew that a relapse would jeopardize his
clearance at the time he obtained it in 2023. This is not a new insight, and that knowledge did not
- 9 -
prevent his recent relapse. For those reasons, I therefore find the therapist’s conclusion
unpersuasive.
I am also unpersuaded by the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that he has rehabilitated the condition,
for three reasons. The DOE Psychologist made clear that the positive prognosis assumes the
Individual continues on his positive trajectory. I do not give the Individual the benefit of that
assumption given the Individual’s pattern of repeated relapse, including after periods longer than
his present abstinence, while entrusted with a security clearance and after assuring DOE that he
intended to permanently abstain from alcohol. Those facts indicate that there is a significant risk
that the Individual will yet again relapse despite treatment that included attending an IOP, therapy,
and AA. Second, the DOE Psychologist’s opinion is based on the reported results of his therapy,
which I find dubious, and the Individual’s support system, which includes his fiancée. As I
previously stated, I doubt that the fiancée or any other person can meaningfully provide support if
the Individual is not honest about his alcohol use. Third, the DOE Psychologist specifically cited
as a differentiating factor from the Individual’s last attempt at recovery that the Individual’s
alcohol use is now out in the open, but the hearing testimony demonstrates that the Individual is
not honest with his fiancée, who is credited as being an important support by DOE Psychologist
and therapist. I therefore do not adopt the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual
demonstrated rehabilitation.
Based on the evidence in the record, I cannot conclude that the concerns are resolved. To find
otherwise would be to disregard my concerns regarding his treatment providers conclusions and
the risk presented by an individual who is prone to relapse and has shown a continuing tendency
to provide unreliable information, including during the present administrative review hearing.
Turning to ¶ 23(c), I conclude that it does not apply to resolve the concerns because while the
Individual is participating in treatment, he has a significant history of treatment and relapse dating
back to 2014.
Lastly, ¶ 23(d) does not apply because the Individual has not yet successfully completed his
required post-IOP aftercare. The Individual is still participating in aftercare and his continuing
participation is recommended by the IOP provider and DOE Psychologist and essential to his
recovery and reducing the risk of relapse.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
the DOE that raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all of the relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive,
common-sense manner, including weighing all of the testimony and other evidence presented at
the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the
security concerns. Accordingly, I have determined that the Individual’s access authorization
should not be restored.
- 10 -
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals