PSH-26-0012

*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: November 17, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0012
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 5, 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 restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position that requires that he hold a security
clearance. On June 7, 2025, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While
Intoxicated (DWI). Exhibit (Ex.) 9 at 41–43.2 In August 2025, the Individual’s DWI charge was
enhanced to Intoxication Assault with a Vehicle, causing Serious Bodily Injury, a 3rd Degree
Felony, because a passenger in his vehicle, at the time of his DWI, suffered bodily harm. Ex. 6 at
29; Ex. 12 at 73.
On June 24, 2025, the Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) to the
Individual, which requested additional details about his arrest. Ex. 10. In the LOI, the Individual
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, 250-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
reported that before his arrest he was consuming alcohol, and while driving his vehicle, he lost
control of the vehicle and a passenger in his vehicle was hurt. Id. at 52.
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s alcohol-related arrest, the LSO referred the
Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (DOE Psychologist), who
conducted a clinical interview of the Individual in August 2025 and issued a report (the Report) of
his findings. Ex. 13. During the psychological evaluation, the Individual told the DOE
Psychologist that before his June 7, 2025, arrest, he consumed “6 to 7 shots and [two] 12-ounce
beers.” Id. at 78. 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), Mild, In Early Remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
at 83.
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 7–8. 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) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) 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 three witnesses: the Individual, the Individual’s
fiancée, and the DOE Psychologist. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0012 (Tr.).
Counsel for the DOE submitted 16 exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 16. The Individual
submitted eleven exhibits, marked as Exhibits A through K.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
A. Guideline G
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, fighting, child or spouse abuse, disturbing the peace, or other incidents
of concern . . .” 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), (d).
In invoking Guideline G, the LSO cited the Individual’s June 7, 2025, arrest and charge for DWI,
which was later enhanced to a charge of Intoxication Assault with a Vehicle causing Serious
Bodily Injury, and his admission, during his August 2025 psychological evaluation, that he
consumed “six to seven shots and two (12-ounce) beers in the span of an hour and a half prior to
his arrest.” Ex. 1 at 6. The LSO also cited the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met
3
sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, In Early Remission, without
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
B. Guideline J
Under Guideline J, “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness,” and, “[b]y its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness
to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. Conditions that
could raise a security concern under Guideline J include “[e]vidence . . . of criminal conduct,
regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted[.]” Id. at
¶ 31(b). In invoking Guideline J, the LSO cited the Individual’s charge of Intoxication Assault
with a Vehicle causing Serious Bodily Injury, and his admission, in the LOI, that before his arrest,
he lost control of his vehicle, and a passenger in his vehicle was hurt. Ex. 1 at 6.
This information adequately justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G and Guideline J.
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.
4
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
On June 7, 2025, the Individual and his fiancée arrived at a bar around midnight and, over the next
hour and a half, the Individual consumed six or seven shots of liquor and two twelve-ounce beers.
Ex. 13 at 78. Later that night, police responded to a report of a vehicle hitting the building. Ex. 12
at 72. The vehicle was gone, but the license plate had fallen off at the scene. Id. Police went to the
address to which the vehicle was registered and spoke with the Individual’s parents, who called
the Individual. Id. The Individual told his parents he had been in a car accident and went to a
hospital. Id. Police officers went to the hospital and administered a breathalyzer test to the
Individual, the result of which estimated the Individual’s blood alcohol content (BAC) at 0.158%.
Id. at 72–23. The Individual was arrested and charged with DWI, which was later enhanced to
Intoxication Assault with Vehicle causing Serious Bodily Injury due to his fiancée’s injuries from
the accident. Id.; see also Tr. at 15‒16 (Individual’s fiancée testifying that she suffered several
broken ribs and a punctured lung). The Individual was released on a $25,000 bond, and he was
required to install an ignition interlock device in his vehicle and avoid drinking alcohol. Ex. 13 at
70; Tr. at 52–53; Ex. F. In his LOI, the Individual reported that the last time he consumed alcohol
was June 7, 2025. Ex. 10 at 54.
In August 2025, the Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist. Ex. 13. In the Report, the
DOE Psychologist noted that the Individual had expressed a desire to abstain from alcohol
indefinitely, and that he intended to enroll in an intensive outpatient program (IOP) with the
Veterans Administration (VA), which would meet three times a week, for three hours each day.
Id. at 79–80. As part of the evaluation, on August 8, 2025, the Individual underwent
phosphatidylethanol (PEth)3 testing, the result of which was negative, and which the DOE
Psychologist opined corroborated the Individual’s report that he last consumed alcohol on June 7,
2025. Id. at 80–81, 88. The DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual met sufficient DSM-5-
TR criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, In Early Remission, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 83. To demonstrate rehabilitation from his AUD, Mild, the
DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual complete the IOP, including undergoing
individual counseling for six months, and provide six months of negative PEth tests. Id.
In September 2025, the Individual enrolled in an IOP, which he completed on November 25, 2025.
Tr. at 48; Ex. A; see also Tr. at 19‒20 (Individual’s fiancée confirming his attendance in her
testimony). The program’s group sessions were held three days a week and included reading from
Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) books, alcohol and drug education, and discussions about the effects
of alcohol use on the drinker and those close to them. Tr. at 43, 58, 71, 73–74; Ex. E. The Individual
also attended weekly individual counseling sessions while in the IOP, which he found beneficial
for discussing his guilt and getting advice on how to avoid alcohol. Tr. at 46–47, 71–75. The
individual counseling sessions also taught him to not let his remorse for the accident lead him back
into drinking alcohol to manage his emotions. Id. at 65. Since completing the IOP, the Individual
has not had a formal appointment with his counselor, but he visits the IOP to speak to his
counselors and attend the group classes, which he sees as a way of “giving back to the community.”
Id. at 47–48, 59, 65. He also explained that he had family members and friends that worked at the
3 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 May 6, 2026). The test can detect alcohol consumption in the three to four weeks preceding the
test. Id.
5
IOP facility, so he feels comfortable visiting the IOP, even if he does not have a formal
appointment to see a counselor. Id. at 59–60. He believed he would be tested for both drugs and
alcohol while in the IOP, but he was only subject to random drug-testing during the program. Id.
at 49–50; Ex. C.
The Individual testified that reading the DOE Psychologist’s Report had been eye opening and
validated his decision to stop consuming alcohol. Tr. at 40, 43. When he read the recommendations
in the Report, he took them seriously and did his best to comply with them. Id. at 61–62. The
Individual expressed remorse for the June 2025 accident and admitted that it had been his fault.
Id. at 45. He intended to abstain from alcohol indefinitely. Id. at 45–46. The Individual submitted
documentary evidence, to support his testimony concerning his abstinence, that he underwent PEth
testing in October 2025, November 2025, December 2025, January 2026, and February 2026, and
on March 6, 2026, and March 31, 2026, the results of which were negative for alcohol
consumption. Id. 51–52; Ex. D, Ex. H, Ex. I.
As for the criminal charges stemming from his June 2025 arrest, the Individual testified that he is
cooperating with all the legal requirements. Tr. at 63. The ignition interlock device is monitored
by his State, and since June 2025, the device had never detected alcohol on his breath. Id. at 33‒
35, 75–76. As of the hearing, his criminal charges had been downgraded to “aggravated assault,”
and he is working with his criminal defense attorney on a plea bargain to resolve his criminal
charges. Id. at 76–79.
At the hearing, the Individual’s fiancée testified that, since the accident, the Individual had been
consistent in his decision to no longer drink alcohol. Id. at 16. The Individual told her that alcohol
had a negative impact on their lives and that he intended to abstain from alcohol permanently. Id.
at 22–23, 27. She explained that the Individual stays busy by going to the gym, shopping, watching
movies, discussing the bible with her son, and doing yardwork. Id. She testified that they spent
most of their free time together and that she had not seen the Individual consume alcohol since the
accident. Id. at 31.
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, Mild. Tr. at 83–84. He explained that the Individual had done, and continued to do,
everything he recommended. Id. at 83. He believed the Individual had a strong support system, his
fiancée was supportive of the Individual’s decision to abstain from alcohol, and the Individual’s
habit of going to the gym provided the Individual with “positive peer pressure.” Id. at 87. As for
his recommendation to obtain individual counseling, he explained that the Individual’s continued
visits to the IOP, since November 2025, showed that he is comfortable with that environment, and
his continued visits are helpful and reinforcing and constitute a “hybrid” version of his
recommendation to have individual counseling. Id. at 86–87. He concluded that the Individual had
complied with his recommendation to obtain individual counseling. Id. Finally, the DOE
Psychologist explained that the Individual’s PEth testing established that he had abstained from
alcohol for six or seven months. Id. at 88. He stated the Individual’s prognosis was good. Id. at 84.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
6
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 June
2025 arrest and subsequent charge with Intoxication Assault with a Vehicle causing Serious Bodily
Injury and his diagnosis of AUD, Mild, under ¶ 23(d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Since meeting with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual submitted evidence that he successfully
completed the treatment program recommended by the DOE Psychologist to resolve his AUD,
Mild. From September 2025 to November 2025, the Individual participated in, and successfully
completed, an IOP, which included alcohol education, reading from AA materials, discussions
about the effects of alcohol, and individual counseling. The DOE Psychologist testified that
although the Individual had not had formal appointments with his counselor since November 2025,
the Individual’s continued visits to the IOP, to talk to his counselors and attend group sessions,
appeared to be helpful to him and reinforcing. Therefore, the DOE Psychologist concluded that
the Individual’s continued visits were a “hybrid” version of individual counseling and that he
complied with his recommendation. Finally, the Individual submitted seven negative PEth tests,
dated from October 2025 to March 2026, to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of
abstinence from alcohol, the full length of which has been at least six or seven months. Therefore,
I agree with the opinion of the DOE Psychologist, who opined that the Individual was rehabilitated
from his AUD, Mild. The DOE Psychologist also opined that the Individual’s prognosis was good.
Therefore, I conclude that the Individual has successfully completed the treatment program
recommended by the DOE Psychologist, and he has demonstrated a clear and established pattern
of abstinence from alcohol sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 23(d).
7
I have also determined that the Individual has sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised
by his June 2025 arrest and subsequent charge with Intoxication Assault with a Vehicle causing
Serious Bodily Injury and his diagnosis of AUD, Mild, under ¶ 23(b) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines.
The Individual testified that when he read the Report, which included the DOE Psychologist’s
finding that he had AUD, Mild, he found it eye opening, and that it validated his decision to abstain
from alcohol indefinitely. Therefore, I find that the Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive
alcohol use. The Individual has provided evidence he has taken actions to overcome his AUD by
following the DOE Psychologist’s recommendation to enroll in alcohol treatment. As explained
above, the Individual submitted sufficient evidence to establish that he successfully completed an
IOP, and he submitted seven negative PEth tests, dated from October 2025 to March 2026, to
demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence from alcohol, for at least six or seven
months.
Therefore, I conclude that the Individual has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use,
provided evidence of action to overcome the problem, and demonstrated a clear and established
pattern of abstinence from alcohol sufficient to mitigate the stated Guideline G concerns.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b).
B. Guideline J
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline J 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 committee 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
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32.
Having mitigated the stated Guideline G concerns, I conclude that the Guideline J concerns raised
by the Individual’s June 2025 arrest have also been mitigated under ¶ 32(d) of the Adjudicative
Guidelines.
The Individual’s June 2025 arrest for DWI was linked to his AUD, Mild. Since his arrest, the
Individual expressed his remorse for causing the accident that led to his June 2025 arrest for DWI
and caused physical injury to his fiancée. The Individual testified that he intends to abstain from
alcohol indefinitely. The Individual’s fiancée testified that since the accident, the Individual has
8
been committed to abstaining from alcohol permanently, and her testimony supports his claim that
he is complying with the conditions of his bond by abstaining from alcohol and not ever triggering
the ignition interlock device in his vehicle. Finally, as explained above, the Individual has
abstained from alcohol for a least six or seven months, and completed the treatment program
recommended by the DOE Psychologist, who opined that the Individual was rehabilitated from his
AUD, Mild.
Therefore, I conclude the root cause of the Individual’s June 2025 arrest has been sufficiently
addressed, and he has mitigated the stated Guideline J concerns. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G and
Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and
unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony
and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the Individual has
demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the common defense and
security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore, I find that the
Individual’s access authorization should be restored. This Decision may be appealed in accordance
with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Diane L. Miles
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals