PSH-26-0024

*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: December 5, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0024
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 18, 2026
__________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
__________________________
Kristin L. Martin, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the
Individual”) for access authorization under the Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations set
forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to
Classified Matter and Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 For
the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the Individual’s security clearance should be restored.
I. BACKGROUND
The Individual is employed by a DOE Contractor in a position which requires a security clearance.
When administered a breathalyzer test as part of a normal procedure at work, the Individual
provided a positive sample of over 0.04 g/210L. The Individual was subsequently referred to a
DOE-consultant psychologist (Psychologist) for an evaluation related to his alcohol consumption.
Thereafter, the Local Security Office (LSO) began the present administrative review proceeding
by issuing a Notification Letter to the Individual informing him that he was entitled to a hearing
before an Administrative Judge in order to resolve the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to
continue holding a security clearance. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.21.
The Individual requested a hearing and the LSO forwarded the Individual’s request to the Office
of Hearings and Appeals (OHA). 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), the
Individual presented the testimony of three witnesses and testified on his own behalf. See
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0024 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”). The LSO
presented the testimony of the Psychologist who had evaluated the Individual. See id. The LSO
submitted thirteen exhibits, marked as Exhibits 1 through 13 (hereinafter cited as “Ex.”). The
1 Under the regulations, “‘[a]ccess authorization’ means 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). Such authorization will also be referred to in this Decision as a security clearance.
2
Individual submitted fifteen exhibits—the results of thirteen phosphatidylethanol (PEth)2 tests, all
negative, a letter from a testing clinic stating that the Individual had arrived for a PEth test but was
unable to take it due to an error in the test order, and a certificate of completion of an intensive
outpatient program for substance abuse (IOP)—marked as Exhibits A through O.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the Notification Letter informed the Individual that information in the
possession of the DOE created a substantial doubt concerning his eligibility for a security
clearance. That information pertains to Guideline G of the National Security Adjudicative
Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information or Eligibility to Hold
a Sensitive Position, effective June 8, 2017 (Adjudicative Guidelines). These guidelines are not
inflexible rules of law. Instead, recognizing the complexities of human behavior, these guidelines
are applied in conjunction with the factors listed in the adjudicative process. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7.
Guideline G states that “excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that could raise a security
concern include:
(a) 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, regardless of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol
use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(b) Alcohol-related incidents at work, such as reporting for work or duty in an
intoxicated or impaired condition, drinking on the job, or jeopardizing the
welfare and safety of others, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(c) Habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment,
regardless of whether the individual is diagnosed with alcohol use disorder;
(d) 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;
(e) The failure to follow treatment advice once diagnosed;
(f) Alcohol consumption, which is not in accordance with treatment
recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use disorder; and
2 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 19, 2026). The test can detect alcohol consumption in the three to four weeks preceding the
test. Id.
3
(g) Failure to follow any court order regarding alcohol education, evaluation,
treatment, or abstinence.
Id. at ¶ 22.
The LSO alleges that, on June 16, 2024, the Individual had positive breathalyzer tests at work with
results of .043 at 8:08 a.m., .039 at 8:24 a.m., and .032 at 8:27 a.m. Ex. 1 at 5.3 In addition, the
LSO alleged that, after a September 2024 evaluation, the Psychologist wrote in an October 2024
report that the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual for Mental Disorders,
Fifth Ed., Text Revision diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate
severity, that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, and
that the Individual had not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
The LSO’s allegations of positive breathalyzer tests at work raise Guideline G concerns under
condition (b), alcohol-related incidents at work. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(b). The
allegations involving the Psychologist’s opinion and diagnosis raise Guideline G concerns under
condition (c), habitual or binge consumption, and condition (d), diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical or mental health professional. Id. at ¶ 22(c)–(d). Accordingly, the LSO’s security concerns
under Guideline G are justified.
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 entire process
is a conscientious scrutiny of a number of variables known as the “whole person concept.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(a). The protection of the national security is the paramount
consideration. 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 his 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. at
§ 710.26(h). Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to
mitigate the security concerns at issue.
3 DOE exhibit page numbers will be cited using the Bates stamp in the top right corner of the documents.
4
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
On the night of June 15, 2024, the Individual was in his home with friends watching a sporting
event. Tr. at 14. Between 7:00 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., the Individual consumed four 12-ounce beers
and two mixed drinks. Ex. 10 at 63; see also Tr. at 14 (Individual’s wife testifying that he
consumed “a few drinks”). He was aware of his employer’s prohibition on alcohol consumption
in the eight hours preceding a work shift. Ex. 9 at 51. The Individual was called in for an overtime
shift and instructed to arrive at 7:00 a.m. the next day. Ex. 7 at 36. When employees in the
Individual’s field are called in for an overtime shift, they are required to submit to a Return to Duty
Blood Alcohol Test. Ex. 4 at 15. The Individual did not feel intoxicated at the time of the
breathalyzer test and did not suspect that he was at risk of having a positive test result. Id. He did
not try to avoid or circumvent the test. Id. As a result of the positive breathalyzer result, the
Individual was placed on administrative leave pending investigation. Ex. 7 at 30.
The Individual was asked to respond to a Letter of Interrogatory. Ex. 9. By the time of his response
on August 19, 2024, the Individual had stopped consuming alcohol. Id. at 53. He wrote that his
most recent alcohol consumption occurred on August 3, 2024, when he consumed about five beers
and three mixed drinks over a twelve-hour period while golfing with friends and later gathering at
a friend’s home. Id. at 54.
The Individual was referred to the Psychologist for a substance abuse evaluation, which occurred
on September 30, 2024. Ex. 10 at 70. On October 10, 2024, the Psychologist issued a report on the
evaluation. Ex. 10. The Individual told the Psychologist that he had discontinued alcohol
consumption a few times over the years for durations of a month or a week. Id. at 65. He told the
Psychologist that he had not consumed alcohol since August 3, 2024. Id. at 64. The Psychologist
noted that the Individual did not try to deny that the positive breathalyzer at work was valid, instead
“taking responsibility for his actions.” Id. at 67. The Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with
Alcohol Use Disorder, moderate severity, and noted that his pattern of alcohol consumption—
heavy drinking on weekends—was habitual. Id. at 69. He acknowledged that the Individual had
taken a “first step” toward reformation by abstaining from alcohol, but had not yet demonstrated
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id.
The Psychologist recommended, for the Individual to show rehabilitation, that the Individual
complete an IOP, followed by aftercare and individual therapy. Ex. 10 at 70. He further
recommended that the Individual submit to PEth testing monthly for a year as proof of one year of
abstinence. Id. He also recommended that the Individual attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA)
meetings and work with a sponsor. Id. The Individual submitted into evidence a certificate of
completion from his IOP, which he attended from December 2024 through March 2025, and the
results, all negative, of thirteen PEth tests.4 Tr. at 44; Ex. O; Exs. A–K, M, N. The Individual did
not attend AA because he did not understand it was different than the IOP and counseling he was
4 The PEth tests were administered monthly from December 2024 through January 2026, with November 2025 being
the month the Individual arrived to take the test but was unable to due to an issue with the order for the test. Ex. A–
N.
5
already doing. Tr. at 40. He continued aftercare group therapy sessions for ninety days after
finishing the IOP and then would attend occasionally as needed. Id. at 44.
At the hearing, the Individual’s spouse testified that they had known each other since middle
school, began cohabitating in 2018, and married in 2023. Tr. at 13. She testified that the Individual
had shared with her what he had learned in alcohol treatment, such as clarity of mind, the
seriousness of his issues with alcohol, and communication skills. Id. at 14. She added that the
Individual had used what he’d learned to improve his listening, communication, and conflict
management skills at home. Id. at 15. The spouse testified that the Individual had not consumed
alcohol in nearly two years. Tr. at 17. She testified that many of their family members do not drink,
and social situations where alcohol is served are not difficult for him. Id. She testified that she
keeps some alcoholic seltzers in the house from time to time to share with friends and that she had
never noticed any missing. Id. at 18. She believed the Individual intended to continue abstaining
from alcohol and stated that she was proud of him. Id. at 19. She testified that he had a strong
support system between her, his mother, and his IOP therapist. Id. at 19–20.
The Individual’s colleague had worked with the Individual since about 2021. Tr. at 24. He also
considered the Individual a close friend. Id. They saw each other daily, including at family and
social events outside of work. Id. at 24–25, 27–28. He testified that the Individual intends to
continue abstaining from alcohol and that he believed the Individual would succeed in that. Id. at
30. He testified that when he played golf with the Individual on the weekends, the Individual did
not seem bothered by others drinking around him. Id. at 27. The colleague also did not consume
alcohol. Id.
The Individual testified that he understood why the positive breathalyzer test and the subsequent
diagnosis by the Psychologist were concerning to DOE. Tr. at 34, 36. He testified that he had
learned many things in the IOP, including the way an addict’s mind works, coping mechanisms,
how to respond to social situations where alcohol is present, and that he had a problem with
alcohol. Id. at 40–41. He testified that he had not consumed alcohol since August 3, 2024. Id. at
42. The Individual testified that he began experiencing health improvement soon after abstaining
from alcohol and described having better mental clarity. Id. at 43. He testified that he was a better
listener and was able to better meet his family’s needs. Id. at 43–44. The Individual was wary of
complacency and understood the value of returning to aftercare as needed.5 Id. at 44–45. He
believed that by continuing to work on himself, he would be able to remain sober indefinitely. Id.
at 44–45, 51. The Individual testified that he had stopped drinking in the past for set periods of
time and had resumed alcohol consumption once he had “met his goals.” Id. at 45–46. Now, he
feels like he let his family down through his alcohol use and wants to ensure that he can care and
provide for them, which includes staying sober. Id. at 46. The Individual has learned about his
triggers, which included family stress and grief associated with death, and has successfully faced
those triggers without consuming alcohol on several occasions since abstaining. Id. at 54–55.
When he recognized that his “muscle memory” was urging him to turn to alcohol to deal with a
trigger, he would find an activity like doing something with his family or going to church in lieu
of consuming alcohol. Id.
5 The Individual’s insurance lapsed when he was placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of this
proceeding, so he had not been able to return to aftercare since January 2026. Tr. at 50–51.
6
The Individual’s IOP therapist, who also did his individual counseling during and after the IOP,
testified that the Individual was an enthusiastic participant in the IOP from the beginning. Tr. at
40, 51–52, 60. He testified that the Individual attended aftercare weekly for about five months after
completing the IOP. Id. The therapist gave the Individual a good prognosis. Id. at 61. He testified
that the Individual had absorbed the foundational techniques taught in the IOP and knew how to
plan for triggers and how to deal with them. Id. at 63. The therapist testified that the Individual
understood “environmental factors, high-risk people, places, situations, how to plan for them and
how to create safety plans to either maintain abstinence while being engaged in those environments
and/or removing yourself from that environment.” Id. He testified that the Individual had little
insight about his alcohol use initially, but through the program began to see how his alcohol use
was maladaptive and that he needed to abstain. Id. at 64. He testified that “throughout the program
[the Individual] learned that there are many layers of a human being that can contribute to this
desire or urge to medicate, numb or depart from willful behavior.” Id.
The Psychologist testified that the Individual had a good attitude and had fulfilled his
recommendation for a year of PEth testing. Tr. at 70. He testified that the Individual had “met the
challenge of reformation that takes him into a commitment to treatment, and his progress shows
rehabilitative progress that will be something that he will need to keep in scope of his thinking and
planning forever.” Id. at 70. He testified that he felt good about the Individual’s ability to remain
sober because of what the Individual learned, how he articulated it, and how he explained it during
the hearing. Id. at 71. He believed the Individual had a good support system. Id. at 72. He gave
him a good prognosis. Id. The Psychologist testified that the Individual was “adequately
rehabilitated to move forward.” Id. He testified that the only recommendation of his that the
Individual did not fulfill was AA attendance. Id. However, he knew that the Individual’s therapist
did not typically recommend AA, and therefore, he could “overlook [the Individual’s] not
following the AA.” Id.
V. ANALYSIS
A person who seeks access to classified information enters into a fiduciary relationship with the
government predicated upon trust and confidence. This relationship transcends normal duty hours
and endures throughout off-duty hours. The government places a high degree of trust and
confidence in individuals to whom it grants access authorization. Decisions include, by necessity,
consideration of the possible risk that the applicant may deliberately or inadvertently fail to protect
or safeguard classified information. Such decisions entail a certain degree of legally permissible
extrapolation as to potential, rather than actual, risk of compromise of classified information.
The issue before me is whether the Individual, at the time of the hearing, presents an unacceptable
risk to national security and the common defense. I must consider all the evidence, both favorable
and unfavorable, in a commonsense manner. “Any doubt concerning personnel being considered
for access for national security eligibility will be resolved in favor of the national security.”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 2(b). In reaching this decision, I have drawn only those conclusions
that are reasonable, logical, and based on the evidence contained in the record. Because of the
strong presumption against granting or restoring security clearances, I must deny access
7
authorization if I am not convinced that the LSO’s security concerns have been mitigated such that
restoring the Individual’s clearance is not an unacceptable risk to national security.
Conditions that may mitigate Guideline G concerns 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; or
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with
any required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern
of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23. Mitigating conditions (b) and (d) apply.
The Individual was originally somewhat defensive regarding his maladaptive alcohol use, but he
went into the IOP with an open mind and learned how his alcohol use was harming him and his
family. He acknowledged that he had a problem with alcohol and committed to abstaining
permanently. He completed the IOP and attended aftercare. He built a support system and fostered
relationships with people who also do not drink. While he is comfortable with and confident about
his commitment to abstinence, he remains vigilant against complacency. He realizes that alcohol
will continue to be a problem for him, so he needs to keep working on himself to maintain his
sobriety. He is motivated to remain sober because he wants to provide for his family and avoid
letting them down. He has shared what he has learned with his wife, and his wife noted
improvement in the Individual’s daily life as a result of what he learned. I find that the Individual
has acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use, provided evidence of actions taken to
overcome the problem, and also described how he intends to continue taking action in the future.
The Individual provided documentary evidence of a year of sobriety and fulfilled almost all of the
treatment recommendations. I find that the Individual’s testimony and evidence are sufficient to
demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with the Psychologist’s
recommendation of one year with PEth testing. Therefore, I find that mitigating condition (b)
applies.
The Individual successfully completed his IOP. His therapist testified to his openness and
participation in the IOP, as well as his regular aftercare attendance. Both the therapist and
Psychologist gave the Individual a good prognosis, which, while not required for condition (d) to
apply, is an indicator of the Individual’s success in treatment. I find that the Individual has
8
successfully completed a treatment program and the required aftercare. As stated above, I further
find that the Individual has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations. Therefore, I find that mitigating condition (d)
applies.
For the foregoing reasons, I find that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline G security
concerns.
VI. CONCLUSION
Upon consideration of the entire record in this case, I find that there was evidence that raised
concerns regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization under Guideline G of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. I further find that the Individual has succeeded in fully resolving those
concerns. Therefore, I conclude that restoring DOE access authorization to the Individual “will not
endanger the common defense and security and is clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10
C.F.R. § 710.7(a). Accordingly, I find that the DOE should restore access authorization to the
Individual.
This Decision may be appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Kristin L. Martin
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals