PSH-26-0018

*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 28, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0018
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: May 27, 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 not be restored.
I. Background
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor, in a position that requires that he hold a security
clearance. In June 2025, the Individual notified his employer that from May 14, 2025, to June 11,
2025, he received treatment for alcohol addiction, and that before he began treatment, he was
consuming “20 shots” of alcohol daily. Exhibit (Ex.) 5 at 17.2 In September 2025, the Individual
notified his employer that from July 22, 2025, to August 29, 2025, he was enrolled in an inpatient
program for alcohol addiction. Ex. 7.
Due to the security concerns raised by the Individual’s alcohol misuse, the Local Security Office
(LSO) referred the Individual for an evaluation by a DOE-contractor psychologist (DOE
Psychologist), who conducted a clinical interview of the Individual on September 15, 2025, and
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, 150-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
issued a report (the Report) of his findings. Ex. 11. Also on September 15, 2025, as part of the
evaluation, the Individual underwent alcohol testing, in the form of a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth)
test,3 the result of which was positive at a level of 231 ng/mL. Id. at 40. The DOE Psychologist
concluded that, based upon a medical doctor’s interpretation of the Individual’s PEth test result,
the Individual was consuming alcohol “at a significantly high rate that is problematic.” Id. at 41,
46–47. Based on his evaluation of the Individual, and the results of the Individual’s PEth test, 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
diagnoses of Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol), and Major Depression, without adequate evidence
of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 41–42. The DOE Psychologist also opined that the
Individual’s diagnoses could impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Id.
In October 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) and Guideline I (Psychological Conditions) 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 on April 28, 2026, pursuant
to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), I took testimony from five witnesses: the Individual, the
Individual’s friend, the Individual’s Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, the manager (house
manager) of a sober living home at which the Individual resides, and the DOE Psychologist. See
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0018 (Tr.). Counsel for the DOE submitted 14
exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 14. The Individual submitted six exhibits, marked as
Exhibits A through F.
II. The Summary of Security Concerns
A. Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)
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 “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(c)‒(d). In invoking Guideline G, the LSO cited the Individual’s
admission, during his psychological evaluation, that from May 14, 2025, to June 11, 2025, and
from July 22, 2025, to August 29, 2025, he was hospitalized for alcohol detoxification and
treatment because he was consuming “20 shots” of alcohol daily. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also cited
3 The Report indicates that “PEth accumulates when ethanol binds to the red blood cell membrane. The PEth level
reflects the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28–30 days as red blood cells degrade and
enzymatic action removes PEth.” Ex. 11 at 47. A PEth level “greater than 200 ng/mL indicates Heavy Consumption
of alcohol (at least 4 drinks/day several days/week).” Id.
3
the DOE Psychologist’s opinion that the Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic criteria
for a diagnosis of Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol), without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Id.4 The aforementioned information justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline G.
B. Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)
Guideline I states that certain “emotional, mental, and personality conditions” can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could
raise a security concern under this guideline include: “an opinion by a duly qualified mental health
professional that the individual has a condition that may impair [their] judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness.” Id. at ¶ 28(b). In invoking Guideline I, the LSO cited the opinion
of the DOE Psychologist, who opined that the Individual met sufficient DSM-5-TR diagnostic
criteria for a diagnosis of Major Depression, and that this condition could impair the Individual’s
judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. Ex. 1 at 5. The aforementioned information
justifies the LSO’s invocation of Guideline I.
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 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
In May 2025, the Individual was experiencing “emotional lows” and isolation, and he was missing
work because of his consumption of alcohol. Tr. at 87. On May 9, 2025, he admitted himself to an
inpatient alcohol detoxification program at a hospital. Ex. 10 at 30–31; Ex. 11 at 37. On May 14,
4 The LSO also cited the results of the Individual’s September 15, 2025, PEth test, which was positive at a level of
231 ng/mL. Ex. 1 at 5. While the Individual’s September 15, 2025, PEth test result informed the DOE Psychologist’s
opinion, it does not present a security concern in and of itself.
4
2025, the hospital transferred the Individual to an alcohol treatment center, where the Individual
was diagnosed with substance use disorder and received inpatient alcohol treatment until June 11,
2025. Tr. at 87; Ex. 11 at 37, 46; Ex. A. Upon discharge, the alcohol treatment center evaluated
the Individual to determine if he should enroll in an Intensive Outpatient Program (IOP), but the
alcohol treatment center concluded that he did not need that level of care. Ex. 11 at 37.
In July 2025, the Individual’s employer filed an incident report with the LSO, which indicated that
the Individual had not appeared for work since July 18, 2025. Ex. 8 at 26. The Individual was
absent from work because he had relapsed. Ex. 11 at 37; Tr. 88–89. He believed he resumed
drinking because he was bored. Ex. 11 at 37. On August 4, 2025, the Individual returned to the
alcohol treatment center, where he received inpatient treatment for alcohol use. Id. The alcohol
treatment center also diagnosed the Individual with depression. Tr. at 90; Ex. 11 at 37. During this
period of treatment, the Individual was prescribed medication to treat his depression and cravings
for alcohol. Ex. 11 at 37. He was discharged on August 29, 2025, but he resumed drinking alcohol
several days later, due to boredom. Id. In September 2025, the Individual entered an IOP, with a
“dual diagnosis emphasis.” Id. He completed this IOP on October 6, 2025. Tr. at 83–84; Ex. B;
Ex. D.
During his September 2025 psychological evaluation, the Individual explained that before he
received alcohol treatment, in May 2025, he was consuming “20 alcohol shots daily, which was
causing him to miss work.” Ex. 11 at 38. He expressed that he believed he was an alcoholic and
that he was seeing a therapist to address his “boredom issues,” which he identified as a trigger for
him to drink. Id. at 39. He reported that he last consumed alcohol on September 10, 2025. Id. at
38. The Individual reported that he was participating in an IOP, four days a week, taking
medication for his depression and alcohol cravings, and attending two AA meetings a week. Id. at
38, 41. As for his depression, the Individual reported that he felt depressed during his first inpatient
stay, in May 2025, but he was not diagnosed with depression until August 2025. Id. As part of the
psychological evaluation, on September 15, 2025, the Individual underwent PEth testing, the result
of which was positive for alcohol, at a level of 231 ng/mL. Id. at 46–47. A medical doctor
interpreting the Individual’s PEth test results opined that the result suggested that the Individual
consumed between three and five alcoholic drinks per day. Id. at 47. The medical doctor also
believed the Individual likely continued to consume alcohol to “stave off alcohol withdrawal.” Id.
The DOE Psychologist found that the Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria in the DSM-5-
TR for a diagnosis of Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol), without adequate evidence of rehabilitation
or reformation. Ex. 11 at 41. Although the Individual was receiving alcohol treatment, the DOE
Psychologist did not believe the Individual had adequate skills and strategies in place to address
his alcohol use and maintain his sobriety without “a significant level of treatment.” Id. To show
adequate evidence of rehabilitation from his Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol), the DOE
Psychologist recommended that the Individual continue participating in an IOP and follow the
IOP’s recommendations for treatment. Id. After completing the IOP, the Individual should
participate in another outpatient alcohol treatment program, that includes weekly participation in
“substance abuse/dual diagnosis outpatient therapy, compliance with medication as directed and
participation in a support group such as [AA or Smart Recovery], for a minimum of four months.”
Id. He believed the Individual should receive treatment for a minimum of one year. Id. The DOE
Psychologist also recommended that the Individual undergo PEth testing to demonstrate
abstinence from alcohol for one year. Id. at 41–42.
5
The DOE Psychologist also diagnosed the Individual with Major Depression. Ex. 11 at 41–42, 44–
45. During the evaluation, the Individual reported that he was taking medication for his depression,
as directed by his medical provider, and that was receiving dialectical behavior therapy (DBT) in
the IOP, as part of his “dual diagnosis treatment.” Id. at 38. To show evidence of rehabilitation
from his depression, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual “continue to take
medication as directed and participate in therapy sessions as directed by his providers specific to
dual diagnosis/mood issues.” Id. at 42. The DOE Psychologist gave the Individual a prognosis of
guarded. Id.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that the last time he consumed alcohol was September 22,
2025, six months before the hearing. Tr. at 65, 82. From October 14, 2025, to November 5, 2025,
the Individual participated in an IOP, at the alcohol treatment center. Ex. 6 at 20; Tr. at 84; Ex. C.
This treatment included alcohol and mental health treatment, relapse prevention, identification of
triggers to consume alcohol, and emotional regulation. Tr. at 79, 85. A letter from the alcohol
treatment center indicated that the Individual “completed their individualized treatment plan goals
and objectives.” Ex. D. The Individual stated that the IOP helped him determine the root of his
depression and alcohol use, and that since starting the IOP, he has accepted that he is powerless
over alcohol. Tr. at 86.
Since October 2025, the Individual has resided in a sober living house. Tr. at 72, 91–92. The house
manager explained that residents of the sober living house are required to abstain from using illegal
drugs and alcohol, they are not allowed to bring alcohol into the house, and they must attend
individual check-in sessions with the house manager, weekly, and attend two group meetings from
AA, Narcotics Anonymous, or some other treatment program, weekly. Id. at 30, 41. Residents are
also subject to a curfew, and daily breathalyzer and urine testing, administered by the house
manager. Id. at 30–31, 33–34. The Individual explained that the sober living house provides him
with accountability for his abstinence and peer support, and that it makes it easier to avoid cravings
for alcohol, due to daily alcohol testing, in the form of breathalyzer tests. Id. at 72–73. The
Individual submitted breathalyzer and urine testing logs from the sober living house, dated from
October 2025 through April 2026, to support his testimony that he never tested positive for alcohol
during that period. Ex. C; Ex. E; Tr. at 31–33,73, 82–83. The house manager stated that he never
suspected that the Individual was consuming alcohol while at the sober living house and that the
Individual attends all required meetings. Tr. at 31–36. The Individual explained that he knew that
the DOE Psychologist recommended that he undergo PEth testing, but that PEth testing is not
provided at the sober living house, and he did not consider getting the tests done on his own. Id. at
94. He intends to remain in the sober living house until he believes he is well enough to leave,
after discussing it with his treatment providers. Id. at 73–74, 93–94.
The Individual further testified that he attends AA meetings, three to five times a week, including
at the sober living house and with his AA sponsor. Tr. at 68–69. The Individual has had an AA
sponsor for approximately nine months. Id. at 49–50. He actively works the steps of the program
and, as of the hearing, he was on step nine or ten. Id. at 68–70 (Individual testifying that he was
on step nine); Id. at 51 (AA sponsor testifying that the Individual was on step ten). The Individual
explained that participating in AA helped him identify that his depression was contributing to his
alcohol consumption. Id. at 69–70. He stated that he intends to attend AA for the rest of his life
and to use the program to become a better person and form better relationships with the people in
his life. Id. at 71–72, 78–79. The AA sponsor stated that he meets with the Individual three to four
6
times a week and that the Individual’s participation at meetings had increased as he progressed
through the program. Id. at 53, 61–62.
The Individual also meets with a therapist, bi-weekly, for treatment of alcohol addiction and
depression, during which he learns how to identify his triggers to drink alcohol and process his
emotions in a healthy way. Tr. at 68, 75–76. Through therapy, the Individual learned his triggers
to drink are boredom and isolation, which he now prevents by actively seeking out people to talk
to. Id. at 76–77. The Individual submitted a letter from his therapist, which indicated that the
Individual had been in treatment since 2025, and that the focus of the sessions included “emotional
regulation, relapse prevention planning, coping strategies for depression, and building healthy
relationships.” Ex. F. The letter also indicated that the Individual’s mood had steadily improved,
and that he learned cognitive-behavioral therapy techniques to manage his emotions. Id. The
Individual intends to continue seeing his therapist for as long as he can. Tr. at 92–93. The
Individual stated that he will continue to take medication to manage his depression, the dosage of
which was recently increased, and that he no longer feels as sad as he used to. Id. at 80–81.
The Individual explained that, compared to his prior attempts to get sober, he is more committed
this time, and he is more connected to his emotions. Tr. at 81–82, 86. When he is not in treatment,
he keeps himself occupied by completing his AA homework assignments, reading, doing puzzles,
volunteering at a thrift store, and interacting with other residents. Id. at 90–92. He also volunteers
at a local detox facility, because he gets to share his story with others. Id. at 74–77, 92. Since he
has stopped drinking, he occasionally gets cravings for alcohol, but he manages the cravings by
contacting his friends and his AA sponsor, and with the help of his alcohol medication. Id. at 83.
A week before the hearing, he was alone and bored, and he had a craving for alcohol, which he
relieved by eating ice cream. Id. at 66. As of the hearing date, he was taking the maximum dose of
his alcohol medication, and his cravings had decreased in both frequency and intensity. Id. at 67–
68. He also feels healthier, more emotionally stable, and happier. Id. at 77. He considers his AA
sponsor, his sober living house, and his friends to be his support system. Id.
The DOE Psychologist testified that after listening to the testimony provided during the hearing
and reviewing the Individual’s exhibits, the Individual had not yet demonstrated rehabilitation or
reformation from his Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol). Tr. at 98. He explained that because of the
Individual’s prior relapses, he needed to show he could abstain from alcohol for at least one year,
to show he is rehabilitated. Id. at 102. He further explained that 40 to 60 percent of people relapse,
by drinking alcohol, within the first year of sobriety, so “time sober is a huge factor in the overall
process.” Id. at 103. He stated that although the Individual had shown a commitment to alcohol
treatment and had made abstaining from alcohol a “very integrative part of his life,” he had only
abstained from alcohol for seven months, which is not enough to resolve his Substance Use, Severe
(Alcohol). Id. at 102–03. He gave the Individual a good prognosis, with a high likelihood of
success, if he remains consistent on his treatment plan. Id. at 105.
As for the Individual’s Major Depression, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual
continues to have Major Depression, but his symptoms are resolving through his use of medication
and therapy. Tr. at 107–08. He explained that the Individual’s depression was “facilitating his use
of alcohol as a coping mechanism,” and that the Individual is less depressed now than he was
during his evaluation. Id. at 107. He also noted that the Individual will continue to learn coping
mechanisms to combat his depression, and at some point, he will no longer need his depression
medication. Id. at 107–08. He stated that because the Individual’s Major Depression is being
7
properly treated, and the Individual is following through with that treatment, his depression no
longer impairs his judgment, stability, reliability or trustworthiness. Id. at 107. He gave the
Individual a good prognosis because he had demonstrated that he is following medical advice to
mitigate his symptoms. Id. at 108.
V. Analysis
A. Guideline G
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.
As to factor (a), the Individual admitted his maladaptive alcohol consumption continued until
September 22, 2025, after his psychological evaluation, and seven months before the hearing.
Furthermore, although the SSC cites two instances of the Individual’s inpatient treatment, the
Individual’s history of treatment included entering alcohol treatment four times, in five months,
and several relapses. Therefore, the Individual’s problematic alcohol consumption did not occur
so long ago or so infrequently as to make it unlikely to recur or to not cast doubt on his current
reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. In addition, there is no evidence that the Individual’s
problematic alcohol consumption occurred under unusual circumstances because he admitted that
his trigger to drink alcohol was boredom and isolation. Finally, I am persuaded by the opinion of
the DOE Psychologist, that because the Individual has not received sufficient alcohol treatment or
abstained from alcohol for one year, he is not yet rehabilitated or reformed from his Substance
Use, Severe (Alcohol). Therefore, I cannot conclude that the Individual’s problematic alcohol
consumption is unlikely to recur, and it continues to cast doubt on his current reliability,
trustworthiness, and judgment. Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the
security concerns related to his alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(a) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
8
As to factor (b), the Individual has never denied that he had a problem with alcohol. Since May
2025, he has tried to overcome his problematic alcohol consumption by voluntarily entering
alcohol treatment programs, only to relapse after he was no longer within the confines of an
inpatient facility. Since September 2025, the Individual has made another attempt to address his
alcohol consumption by completing two IOPs, which were focused on both his alcohol use and
depression, and participating in AA with the support of a sponsor, at least three days a week. The
Individual meets with a therapist, bi-weekly, to discuss his triggers to drink alcohol and his
depression, and he manages his cravings for alcohol with medication. Finally, the Individual has
engaged in his current treatment regimen while residing in a sober living house, the terms of which
require that he abstain from alcohol, be subject to daily drug and alcohol testing, adhere to a
curfew, and participate in weekly AA meetings and individual check-in meetings, with the house
manager. However, considering the Individual’s history of relapsing following treatment, I concur
with the opinion of the DOE Psychologist, who opined that the Individual’s seven months of
abstinence is not enough time to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence to
resolve his Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol). See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of
the “likelihood of recurrence” in applying the mitigating conditions). Therefore, I find that the
Individual has not mitigated the security concerns related to his alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(b)
of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
As to factors (c) and (d), as explained above, the Individual has completed two IOPs, was
participating in AA, with the support of a sponsor, was seeing a therapist, bi-weekly, and was
managing his alcohol cravings with medication. However, the Individual had a history of
participating in inpatient alcohol treatment programs and relapsing after being discharged from the
programs. Because the Individual has only received alcohol treatment for seven months, which is
short of the 12 months of treatment recommended by the DOE Psychologist, he is not yet
rehabilitated or reformed from his Substance Use, Severe (Alcohol). Also, he has abstained from
alcohol for seven months, which does not establish a pattern of abstinence from alcohol in
accordance with the DOE Psychologist’s treatment recommendations, which required abstinence
for one year. Given the Individual’s history of relapse following treatment, and considering that
his current period of abstinence has yet to be tested outside of the controlled environment of the
sober living house, I harbor significant concerns that the Individual’s pattern of relapse will
reemerge without the additional time recommended by the DOE Psychologist. See 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of the “likelihood of recurrence” in applying the mitigating
conditions). Therefore, I find that the Individual has not mitigated the security concerns related to
his alcohol consumption under ¶ 23(c) or ¶ 23(d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Based on the foregoing analysis, I cannot find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns
raised by the LSO under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
B. Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline I include:
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the
individual has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the
treatment plan;
9
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual's
previous condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability
of recurrence or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has
been resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional
instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
Based on the evidence before me, I find that the Individual has mitigated the security concerns
related to his psychological condition under ¶ 29(b) of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
The DOE Psychologist explained that the Individual’s depression facilitated his use of alcohol as
a coping mechanism. Although the Individual attempted alcohol treatment in May 2025, he was
not diagnosed with depression until August 2025. Since August 2025, the Individual has treated
his depression by taking medication, as directed by his medical provider, and by participating in
bi-weekly therapy sessions. The Individual testified that with his current treatment regimen, he is
more emotionally stable and happier. Therefore, I concur with the opinion of the DOE
Psychologist, who opined that the Individual is controlling the symptoms of his Major Depression
with his current course of treatment and the symptoms of his depression are resolving. I also concur
with the opinion of the DOE Psychologist that, because the Individual is following through with
his treatment, his Major Depression no longer impacts his judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness. The DOE Psychologist also opined that his prognosis for the Individual was good,
a favorable prognosis, because the Individual demonstrated that he is following the advice of his
medical providers to mitigate his symptoms.
I conclude that the Individual has voluntarily entered a counseling program to treat symptoms of
his Major Depression, he is currently receiving treatment, and he has received a favorable
prognosis from the DOE Psychologist, a duly qualified mental health professional. Therefore, the
Individual has mitigated the Guideline I concerns. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29(b).
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G and
Guideline I of the Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that although the Individual has
successfully resolved the security concerns raised under Guideline I, he has not succeeded in fully
resolving the security concerns raised under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines.
Accordingly, the Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not
10
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 not 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