PSH-26-0025

*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-26-0025
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 12, 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 early March 2025, the Individual was arrested and charged with Battery on Household Member
(Battery) after consuming alcohol. As a result, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) requested
that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) regarding
alcohol use. Based on the information gathered by the LSO, including the DOE Psychologist’s
report (Report), the LSO informed the Individual by letter (Notification Letter) that it possessed
reliable information that 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
Guideline G and Guideline J 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
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 -
Administrative Judge in this matter, and I subsequently conducted an administrative review
hearing. At the hearing, the Individual testified on his own behalf and presented the testimony of
his friend, his Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor (sponsor), and a treatment counselor
(counselor). The LSO presented the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. The Individual submitted
twelve exhibits, marked Exhibits A through L.2 The LSO submitted fourteen exhibits, marked
Exhibits 1 through 14.3
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY
CONCERNS
As indicated above, the LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal
Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the bases for concern regarding the Individual’s
eligibility to possess 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 “[a]lcohol-related incidents away from work, such as . . .
fighting, . . . spouse abuse, . . . or other incidents of concern . . .” and “diagnosis by a duly qualified
medical or mental health professional (e.g., physician, clinical psychologist, psychologist, or
licensed clinical social worker) of alcohol use disorder . . . .” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d). The SSC recounts
that the Individual admitted he consumed a significant amount of alcohol prior to being arrested
for and charged with Battery and that the DOE Psychologist concluded the Individual met
sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, Text Revision
(DSM-5-TR) criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The information justifies the invocation of
Guideline G.
Guideline J provides that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability,
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. “By its very nature, it calls into question a
person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Id. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include “[e]vidence (including, but not limited to, a credible
allegation, an admission, and matters of official record) of criminal conduct, regardless of whether
the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted . . . .” Id. at ¶ 31(b). The SSC cited
the above information regarding his 2025 arrest and charge for Battery; a 2019 charge for Battery,
False Imprisonment, and Criminal Damage to Property; and a 2018 charge for Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia, Possession of Marijuana, and Speeding. Ex. 1 at 5. The cited information justifies
the LSO’s invocation of Guideline J.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
2 Exhibits A through H are combined in a single .pdf exhibit book. Reference to these exhibits are to the exhibit letter
and page number of the combined exhibit book. Reference to the remaining exhibits, which were submitted as
individual documents, will be to the page number of the information within the exhibit.
3 References to the LSO exhibits are to the exhibit number and the page number of the combined .pdf of the exhibit
book.
- 3 -
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).
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
During the Individual’s first semester in college in 2018, he was charged with Possession of Drug
Paraphernalia, Possession of Marijuana, and Speeding. Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No.
PSH-26-0025 (Tr.) at 51; see also Ex. 12 at 162–63 (Questionnaire for National Security
Positions). He pled guilty and served probation, which he completed a year later in October 2019.
Tr. at 51 (also testifying that the below-described 2019 charge did not impact his probation); see
also Ex. B at 9 (docket sheet reflecting that the Individual admitted to the supervising court that
his below-described conduct violated the terms of his probation and he successfully completed his
probation as-scheduled in October 2019).
In 2019, the Individual was arrested and charged with Battery, False Imprisonment, and Criminal
Damage to Property while attending college. Tr. at 52; Ex. 12 at 163–64. According to the
Individual, the incident occurred because he and his then-girlfriend were arguing in his dorm room
regarding her infidelity. Tr. at 52. The Individual testified that his girlfriend was seated on his
elevated dormitory bed and kicked him in the chest area, and he responded by hitting her in the
thigh. Id.; see also Ex. 14 at 262 (Individual’s description to an investigator regarding incident).
The then-girlfriend attempted to leave the Individual’s room, and the Individual stood in the
doorway to stop her from leaving. Tr. at 52. Eventually, the girlfriend left the room and went
downstairs, and the Individual followed her as she entered her vehicle. Id. at 53. While outside,
the Individual tried to continue speaking with her through her vehicle window, but she would not
roll it down, so he struck it with his hand, breaking it. Id. As a consequence, the Individual pled
guilty to Battery, he received a suspended sentence and two years of probation, and the two other
- 4 -
charges were dismissed after he reimbursed the girlfriend for breaking her vehicle window. Id. at
53–54; Ex. B at 20 (docket sheet confirming he completed probation satisfactorily and paid the
restitution balance). As a part of his probation, he successfully completed a batterer’s intervention
class. Tr. at 55; Ex. 14 at 260. The Individual testified that he felt extremely guilty and embarrassed
by his behavior. Tr. at 56.
In 2022, the Individual enrolled in a seven-day inpatient alcohol treatment program on the advice
of his grandmother after he and his cousin got into a car accident after a night of consuming alcohol
and driving recklessly. Id. at 61–62. However, he began consuming alcohol again within a month
of completing the treatment program. Id. at 63. The Individual testified that at the time he had not
yet realized that he could not handle moderate alcohol consumption. Id.
Approximately two years later, at the end of 2024, the Individual began working for his current
contractor employer. Id. From the start, he enrolled in his employer’s fitness for duty program4
(FFD). Id. at 64; see also id. at 28 (testimony of friend, who works for the same employer, that the
Individual realized that his alcohol use could negatively impact his career with their employer).
As a part of FFD, he first completed an Employee Assistance Program (EAP) six-week alcohol
awareness class and then participated in an EAP twelve-week abstinence support component. Id.
at 64; Ex. D at 27 (March 2026 letter from Occupational Medicine, which runs FFD).
In 2024, the Individual also started dating a new girlfriend. Tr. at 57. In March 2025, while still
participating in his employer’s abstinence support course, the Individual and his then-girlfriend
got into an argument because, as the Individual described, he refused to drive them to obtain food
because he had been consuming alcohol that evening and was intoxicated. Id. at 57–58, 61. He
asserted that his girlfriend became upset by this, and when he tried to comfort her, she started
kicking him. Id. at 58. This made the Individual upset, and he responded by gathering her items to
put her out of his apartment while she screamed for him to stop and he yelled at her that he wanted
the relationship to end. Id. He testified that the police arrived as he started putting the gathered
items outside. Id. at 59.
The police report related to the Individual’s March 2025 arrest provides a different account. It first
notes that the Individual was attempting to leave the scene in his vehicle as officers arrived. Ex. 7
at 37. It then provides the girlfriend’s account in which she alleged that the Individual had been
“antagonizing and physically abusing” her throughout the evening. Id. She also related that her
stomach had been hurting, the Individual “kept laying on [it],” which prompted her to ask him to
stop, and she moved to a different location in the room and got under a blanket to avoid him. Id.
The Individual followed her and attempted to “lay on her or hug her,” and she responded by kicking
him away. Id. With her head still covered by the blanket, she “fe[lt] her foot make contact with
[the Individual],” and he allegedly in response “got on top of her and punched her with a closed
fist on the side of her head approximately twice.” Id. She presented a broken hairclip to the officer
and said it resulted from the Individual punching the side of her head. Id. She also stated she did
not intend to kick the Individual and “just wanted him away from her.” Id. The police report
indicates that the Individual described the same set of facts to the police officer except that the
Individual denied any physical altercation. Id. The officer noted that the Individual had a strong
4 FFD is “a program that evaluates an employee’s ability to work safety and reliably due to medical, behavioral, or
substance use concerns.” Ex. D at 27.
- 5 -
odor of alcohol and observed boxing trophies in his room. Id. Based on his observations and the
statements he gathered, the officer concluded that the Individual was the aggressor. Id. The
Individual was placed under arrest and charged with Battery. Id. at 37. The police report did not
include any indication that the officer observed evidence of physical injury to the girlfriend. See
id. The friend, in her testimony, confirmed that the Individual had been boxing since he was
approximately eleven years old. Tr. at 25.
The Individual testified that he never struck this girlfriend, and while she alleged to the police
officers that he had hit her, she later filed a statement with the court stating that he was not the
aggressor and did not hurt her. Id. at 59. A copy of that notarized statement is in the record, and
she therein states that she “initiated a physical altercation . . . by kicking [the Individual] in the
face” and she was “not harmed by [the Individual].” Ex. L. The Individual testified that his lawyer
communicated with his then-girlfriend and secured the statement. Tr. at 94. As a result, the
prosecution dismissed the case. Id. at 59; see also Ex. 6 at 31 (docket sheet documenting dismissal).
The Individual testified that the night of his March 2025 arrest was the first time he had consumed
alcohol in three months. Tr. at 65. After the arrest, he followed FFD’s recommendation to enroll
in a six-month Intensive Outpatient Treatment Program (IOP). Id. at 66. While still enrolled in the
IOP, the Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist in August 2025. Ex. 10 at 81. As a
result of the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Moderate,
pursuant to the DSM-5-TR, after considering the Individual’s prior treatment in 2022, his
admission into his employer’s FFD program, the March 2025 incident, and his recent entry into
the IOP. Id. at 86–87. The DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis is consistent with the IOP provider’s
diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse, uncomplicated, moderate. Ex. G at 43. The DOE Psychologist opined
that the Individual has a “history of excessive alcohol use and a maladaptive pattern of alcohol
consumption as early as 2021 with multiple failed attempts to reduce and/or completely
discontinue drinking alcohol.” Ex. 10 at 86. The DOE Psychologist further opined that, based on
the provided information, the Individual was actively engaged in FFD and IOP treatment programs
and had been compliant with the treatment recommendations except for a single relapse on June
28, 2025. Id. at 86–87; see also Tr. at 67 (Individual admitting relapse). At the time of the
evaluation, the DOE Psychologist requested that the Individual undergo a Phosphatidylethanol
(PEth) test because it can detect “any significant alcohol use over the past three to four weeks.”
Ex. 10 at 86. The test result was negative, which was consistent with the Individual’s report of
abstinence since June 2025. Id. After the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist recommended that the
Individual abstain from alcohol for at least one year, complete the IOP, continue with IOP aftercare
“and or” continue attending AA with a sponsor,5 and undergo monthly PEth testing. Id. at 87 (also
recommending that the total time in all treatment should be at least a year).
The Individual completed the IOP in October 2025. Ex. G at 45 (certificate of completion).
Afterward, he enrolled in the six-month IOP aftercare and completed it in March 2026. Tr. at 66;
Ex. D at 27 (indicating the Individual had enrolled in FFD in October 2024, completed the EAP
5 The Individual first began attending SMART Recovery, which is a program similar to AA, as part of the six-month
IOP. Tr. at 71. He participated in twenty-four SMART Recovery sessions between March 2025 and March 2026. Ex.
G at 43 (March 2026 letter from IOP provider). He then began attending AA based on the DOE Psychologist’s
recommendation. Id.
- 6 -
alcohol education and abstinence support6 classes, completed the IOP and IOP aftercare, and had
been attending AA). He described IOP aftercare as monthly group treatment during the first three
months and one-on-one personal counseling for the remainder. Tr. at 72.
During the hearing, the Individual referred to himself as an alcoholic. Id. at 63, 77. He testified
that he benefited from AA and the relationship he has with his sponsor and other supportive AA
participants. Id. at 70, 75–77; see also id. at 29 (friend explaining that the Individual, at first, did
not want to attend AA but has since endorsed “really enjoy[ing] going to AA” and “get[ing] a lot
out of it”), 41–42 (counselor testifying that the Individual shared that he benefits from AA
meetings because of the honesty regarding how to address challenges in recovery); Ex. J (AA log
demonstrating attendance at thirty-two meetings between December 2025 and April 2026). He
began working with a sponsor about two months before the hearing date. Tr. at 15. The Individual
testified that AA is the “best thing to help” out of all of the things he has done during recovery. Id.
at 83 (testifying that, for example, going through a moral inventory in AA helped him identify and
work through “character defects” that impacted his problem with alcohol), 88 (testifying he can
open up during AA, “talk about uncomfortable things,” and learn from other participants’ struggles
and decisions). He testified that he intends to continue attending AA and abstaining from alcohol
indefinitely. Id. at 87.
The counselor testified that she began working with the Individual through the employer’s EAP in
late 2024, and the Individual had attended ten EAP classes. Id. at 40, 42. During that time, she
observed him develop “much more insight into his alcohol use” and acknowledge that sobriety
and recovery are “lifelong work.” Id. at 42–43.
The Individual testified that his main supporters are his sponsor and friends. Id. at 79 (Individual
also testifying that he calls one friend every morning, which helps him deal with daily stress), 84;
see also id. at 16–17 (sponsor testifying he meets with the Individual outside of AA approximately
twice a week; the Individual is committed, open, and honest; and the Individual has reached out
for help managing stress), 29 (friend testifying that the Individual reports receiving positive
support from the AA participants). The Individual has also stopped socializing with people that he
knows will want to consume alcohol. Id. at 84.
The Individual testified that he is now better able to think through issues that arise and consider
the consequences instead of immediately acting, which allows him to better respond to situations
and manage his stress and triggers. Id. at 82; see also id. at 29 (friend testifying that she had
observed the Individual become less reactive to issues that used to upset him). He also learned the
benefit of communication during relationships and acknowledged that his prior relationships
lacked communication and honesty. Id. at 89. He testified that if his current girlfriend or anybody
else were to become physical during an altercation, he would simply walk away, and he provided
the example of the effort he puts forward at work to “not escalate anything” by, for instance, using
noninflammatory language. Id. at 93. He also testified that he has set boundaries with his current
girlfriend, making it clear that he will leave the relationship if she ever becomes physical in a
negative way. Id.
6 The counselor who facilitates this class described it as “an opportunity for people interested in abstaining from
alcohol to learn skills and gain added support specific to this goal” with a focus on maintenance. Ex. K.
- 7 -
The record includes PEth test results from monthly testing he underwent from August 2025
through March 2026. Ex. F at 34–41. All eight results are negative. Id.
At the hearing, The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had met the recommendations
outlined in the Report. Tr. at 101. The Individual completed the IOP, complied with the
recommendations of that provider to continue IOP aftercare, continued participating in his
employer’s EAP up to the hearing date, and participated in alcohol treatment for at least one year.
Id. at 100, 102–03. The Individual also complied with the recommendation to participate in AA
with a sponsor, which the DOE Psychologist noted went beyond his recommendation to participate
in either aftercare or AA. Id. at 101–03. And the Individual provided negative PEth test results that
corroborate his claimed abstinence since June 2025, which is approximately nine months of
reported abstinence. Id. at 101; see also id. at 18 (sponsor testifying that the Individual has reported
nine months of sobriety). The DOE Psychologist noted that the fact the PEth tests only corroborate
nine months instead of the recommended twelve did not “persuade [him] that [the Individual]
hasn’t . . . been able to achieve rehabilitation” given his demonstrated progress in treatment.7 Id.
at 103, 108. The DOE Psychologist also noted that the Individual had a positive support system,
had demonstrated a deeper understanding of his alcohol problem since the evaluation, and had
demonstrated that he was appropriately addressing his AUD. Id. at 101–03. Finally, the DOE
Psychologist concluded that the Individual had demonstrated rehabilitation of his AUD, that his
AUD was in early remission, and that the Individual had a good prognosis. Id. at 104, 108 (defining
rehabilitation as treatment that results in the person changing their behavior to the point they are
no longer impaired by their condition).
V. ANALYSIS
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
7 In reaching this conclusion, the DOE Psychologist necessarily accepted that the Individual had remained abstinent
for the asserted periods not covered by clinical testing.
- 8 -
(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 ¶ 23(b) applies to resolve the Guideline G concerns. The Individual has
acknowledged his pattern of maladaptive alcohol use by affirmatively acknowledging his AUD,
referring to himself as an alcoholic, and stating that he has been attempting to address the problem
since his initial IOP back in 2022. The record also demonstrates that he has taken significant steps
to overcome this problem since 2024 by enrolling in his employer’s FFD and completing the
recommended EAP alcohol education and abstinence support program, completing the IOP and
IOP aftercare, attending AA with a sponsor, remaining abstinent, and documenting that abstinence
with monthly PEth testing. In doing so, he has provided significant evidence that includes clinical
test results that he has remained abstinent for approximately nine months from August 2025 to the
April 2026 hearing date while undergoing recommended treatment. And, according to the DOE
Psychologist, the Individual has exceeded the recommendations outlined in the Report by both
participating in IOP aftercare while also attending AA in addition to his other treatment. As a
result, the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual had rehabilitated his AUD and had a
good prognosis. I concur with the opinion of the DOE Psychologist and conclude that the
Individual has demonstrated a clear pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Accordingly, I conclude that the Individual has resolved the Guideline G
security concerns.
B. Guideline J Considerations
Conditions that can mitigate security concerns based on criminal conduct include the following:
(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 committing 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.
I find that none of the mitigating conditions apply to resolve the Guideline J security concerns. In
reaching my conclusion, I first find that the Individual was admittedly intoxicated at the time of
- 9 -
his arrest in 2025, and he did not blame his alleged behavior on being intoxicated. In other words,
he did not assert that he struck his girlfriend because he was intoxicated and that had he not been
intoxicated he would never have hit her. Instead, he denied hitting or doing anything aggressive
toward her. Moreover, there is no indication that alcohol played a role in the Individual’s alleged
2018 or 2019 criminal conduct. Thus, this is not a case where the Individual can point to the
resolution of his problem with alcohol as a basis to conclude that he will not engage in criminal
conduct in the future.
In light of the above, I have considered the allegations that formed the basis of the 2025 Battery
charge to determine whether they are reliable. There is some evidence that weighs in the
Individual’s favor. First, the girlfriend admitted to police that during the argument she kicked the
Individual when he may have been attempting to lay on or hug her. Then she stated that she did
not intend to kick the Individual when she kicked him, which is a contradictory statement that
admits initiating physical aggression but attempts to avoid culpability for the same. Furthermore,
she alleged that the Individual punched her twice in the head with a closed fist with enough force
to break a hairclip on her head, but the fact the officer did not observe any physical injuries
somewhat undermines this allegation. It seems likely that punches strong enough to break a plastic
hairclip would leave some kind of bruise, scratch, or other mark—especially when the strikes come
from a trained boxer. And, ultimately, that girlfriend submitted a notarized statement, which
secured the dismissal of the charges, stating that she “was not harmed” by the Individual, which
corroborates the Individual’s claim that he never struck her.
However, I find that the following factors weigh in favor of finding there is reliable evidence that
the Individual committed the alleged conduct. First, the circumstances are strikingly similar to the
2019 incident in which a romantic partner attempted to leave the Individual’s presence, he
followed, and he took escalating aggressive action—in the former case breaking a car window; in
the recent case, allegedly hitting his girlfriend twice. Furthermore, the Individual admitted that he
was attempting to “comfort” the then-girlfriend at the time she kicked him, which corroborates her
testimony that he was either attempting to lay on or hug her against her will. Further still, the
Individual denied any physical altercation happened at the scene, while at the hearing he admitted
that there was a physical altercation after he attempted to initiate physical contact and his girlfriend
kicked him. His denial at the scene therefore demonstrates an instance of willingly downplaying
the circumstances and detracts from his credibility. Additionally, the girlfriend’s notarized
statement does not go as far as recanting the allegations. Instead of denying that she had been
struck by the Individual, she merely states that she “was not harmed.” Being struck and being
harmed are not the same, and the former can occur without the latter necessarily being the result.
Additionally, her notarized statement says that her kick “initiated a physical altercation,” not that
she alone was the sole aggressor. In other words, the continuation of that “initiated” altercation
could very well have included the Individual hitting her. A review of the precise language used in
the letter is justified when, as the Individual indicated, the statement was procured by his attorney.
Lastly, the police report directly contradicts the Individual’s testimony at the hearing that he was
attempting to remove his girlfriend’s clothing from his apartment when the officers appeared. The
police report instead records that the Individual was attempting to leave the scene in his vehicle
when officers arrived. This unresolved contradiction undermines the credibility of the Individual’s
testimony regarding this incident in general and also presents two additional issues. First, I find it
concerning that the Individual, who asserts he is innocent of the allegations, was attempting to
- 10 -
leave the scene. Furthermore, if he had in fact refused to drive to obtain food because of his
intoxicated state, it stands to reason that he would not then attempt to drive away from his
apartment in the same state after removing the girlfriend, the source of the problem, from his
apartment. I therefore doubt his explanation that the incident resulted from his responsible decision
to refuse his girlfriend’s request that he drive while intoxicated. Stated differently, I am skeptical
of his attempt to lay the blame for the altercation on her while representing himself as the
responsible party. After weighing the above considerations, I conclude that there is reliable
evidence that the Individual committed the 2025 Battery.
Accordingly, I conclude ¶ 32(a) does not apply to resolve the concerns derived from the 2019 and
2025 criminal charges because the most recent 2025 Battery occurred within the last year, which
is relatively recent, and there is no indication there were unusual circumstances surrounding his
interactions with either girlfriend. Both the 2019 and 2025 charges stem from similar precipitating
circumstances in that the Individual chose to continue to engage with these women despite their
desire to leave his presence during an argument.
I further find that ¶ 32(b) does not apply to resolve the security concerns because there is no
evidence that the Individual was pressured or coerced into committing the offenses.
Next, I conclude that ¶32(c) does not apply due to my above reasoning. There is reliable evidence
in the record that the Individual committed the most recent criminal offense and there is no doubt
he committed the prior offenses.
Lastly, I conclude that ¶ 32(d) does not apply because the Individual has not demonstrated
successful rehabilitation. “True rehabilitation begins with acceptance of one’s behavior and the
consequences.” Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-14-0109 at 11 (2015); see also
Personnel Security Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-23-0078 at 10 (2023) (stating that whether an
individual takes responsibility for their behavior “is an important consideration for rehabilitation”).
Here, the Individual has consistently denied he hit his then-girlfriend in March 2025. He has
therefore consistently denied responsibility for the alleged behavior and therefore has not taken
responsibility for it. Furthermore, only a year has passed since the most recent criminal charge,
which is a relatively brief period of time. Lastly, the most recent criminal charge is almost identical
to the circumstances of the 2019 criminal charges, and I therefore place minimal weight on the
fact that he completed probation and restitution. Those factors are outweighed by his recent charge
and failure to accept responsibility for his alleged conduct. Moreover, the fact that he has resolved
his AUD does not weigh towards mitigation because he does not argue that his alcohol use
contributed to the alleged criminal behavior. Accordingly, I conclude that the Individual has not
resolved the Guideline J concerns.
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 and Guideline J of the Adjudicative
- 11 -
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 conclude that the Individual has brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the Guideline G, but not the Guideline J, security concerns. Accordingly, I
have determined 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.
James P. Thompson III
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals