PSH-26-0027

*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 16, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0027
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: February 25, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXX (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
In December 2024, the Individual was arrested and charged with misdemeanor Driving Under the
Influence (DUI) with Property Damage or Personal Injury. Exhibit (Ex.) 6 at 46.2 The police report
indicates that the Individual rear-ended another vehicle that was stopped at a red light. Id. at 47. A
nearby law enforcement officer “heard a loud crashing noise” and when the officer drove to the
scene, he observed the Individual sitting in his car as the other driver flagged him down. Id. at 47,
63. The police report also indicates that the law enforcement officer “detected multiple indicators
of impairment[,]” as the Individual was “unsteady on his feet and using the vehicle to hold himself
up.” Id. at 47, 63. Other signs of impairment included “the odor of an alcohol beverage emitting
from the [Individual’s] breath as he spoke, slurred speech[,] and bloodshot, watery[,] and glassy
eyes.” Id. at 47, 63, 70. Another officer who responded to the scene noted that the Individual “was
very confrontational and uncooperative, as he was yelling and continuously repeating ‘[n]obody
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 exhibits submitted by DOE and the Individual were not numbered. This Decision will refer to the PDF page
number when citing to exhibits.
2
called you!’” Id. at 70. The Individual refused to submit to any field sobriety tests or a breath
alcohol test but was nonetheless placed under arrest.3 Id. at 47, 71.
The Individual was asked to complete a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) at the behest of the DOE
Local Security Office (LSO), which he signed and submitted in May 2025. Ex. 6. The Individual
explained that on the day of the December 2024 DUI incident, he attended a work party whereat
he claimed that he consumed approximately three beers over three hours. Id. at 39–40. He stated
that, after he left the party, as he approached a green light, it appeared that the car in front of him
was moving forward, but “suddenly hit the brakes.” Id. at 39. They both pulled off the road, and
the Individual stated that damage to the other car was “cosmetic.” Id. at 39–40.
In the LOI, the Individual was also asked to provide information regarding a March 2022 DUI
arrest and charge.4 Id. at 41. He explained that on that occasion, he went to watch a fight at a local
sports bar to celebrate a friend’s birthday. Id. He claimed that he consumed one beer and three
mixed drinks. Id. His blood alcohol content (BAC) on that night was 0.12. Id.
The Individual completed a second LOI in June 2025. Ex. 7. In explaining the uncooperative
behavior that the officer noted in the police report regarding the December 2024 DUI incident, the
Individual explained that when the accident occurred, he and the other driver pulled over to
exchange information. Id. at 85. He stated that after law enforcement personnel responded to the
scene, they were asked to leave by both him and the other driver. Id. He explained that his
“frustration was directed at the officers’ rude behavior and what [he] perceived [was] an unlawful
detainment.” Id.
As questions still remained, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation conducted by a
DOE-consultant psychologist on July 22, 2025 at the behest of the LSO. Ex. 9. As part of the
evaluation process, the Individual submitted to Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) and ethyl glucuronide
(EtG) tests. Id. at 103–04. The PEth test was positive at a value of 22 ng/mL, and the EtG test was
negative.5 Id. at 103. In a report (the Report) that the DOE Psychologist issued in August 2025,
the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual “habitually or binge consume[s] alcohol to
the point of impaired judgment[.]” Id. at 100.
The LSO began the present administrative review proceeding by issuing a letter (Notification
Letter) to the Individual in which it notified him that it possessed reliable information that created
a substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization. In a Summary of Security
3 The Individual ultimately entered a guilty plea to reckless driving in July 2025. Ex. 8. He was placed on probation,
which required him to complete fifty hours of community service, report to a probation officer for twelve months, pay
restitution, complete a DUI school and victim impact panel, and undergo a drug and alcohol evaluation followed by
any necessary treatment. Ex. 8 at 89; Ex. C; Ex. D; Ex. E; Ex. F; Ex. H. Because he completed the terms of his
probation early, he was discharged from probation in December 2025. Ex. G.
4 A record of the Individual’s criminal history was accessed in June 2025, which confirmed that the DUI charge was
reduced to Reckless Driving Alcohol Related on final disposition in January 2023. Ex. 5 at 29–30.
5 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 9 at
103. PEth “can be detected for up to 28 [days].” Ex. 11 at 3. An EtG test requires a urine specimen and can detect
alcohol in the body, and “[a]fter only one or two drinks, EtG can be detected for up to 48 [hours], but with heavy
consumption, EtG can be detected for up to 4 days.” Id. at 2.
3
Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption), E (Personal
Conduct), and J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 2. The Notification Letter
informed the Individual that he was entitled to a hearing before an Administrative Judge to resolve
the substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to hold 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 Administrative Judge in
this matter. At the hearing I convened pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.25(d), (e), and (g), the Individual
testified on his own behalf. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0027 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”) The Individual also submitted fourteen exhibits, marked Exhibits A through N. The
DOE Counsel submitted ten exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 10 and presented the testimony
of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
Guideline G
Under Guideline G, “[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. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “alcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence[,]” and the “habitual or binge
consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, regardless of whether the individual is
diagnosed with alcohol use disorder[.]” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c). Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged
that:
1. The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual “habitually binge consumes alcohol
to the point of impaired judgment, which has resulted in high-risk behavior.” Ex. 2 at 6.
2. The Individual was charged with DUI in December 2024, and officers noted an odor of
alcohol, slurred speech, bloodshot, watery, and glassy eyes, as well as uncooperative
behavior. Id. at 7. The Individual admitted that he had consumed three beers prior to the
DUI. Id.
3. The Individual was arrested and charged with DUI in March 2022. Id. The Individual’s
BAC was .12. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.6
Guideline E
6 The LSO made two additional allegations restating opinions the DOE Psychologist offered in the Report. While this
information informed the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to the point of
impaired judgment, the two additional allegations do not raise security concerns distinct from the DOE Psychologist’s
opinion concerning the Individual’s binge consumption of alcohol and therefore I do not consider them herein.
Additionally, I have no information before me indicating that the DOE Psychologist consulted with a medical doctor,
an appropriate individual to interpret PEth test results. Accordingly, I afford the DOE Psychologist’s interpretation of
the PEth test result very little weight.
4
Under Guideline E, “[c]onduct involving questionable judgement, lack of candor, dishonesty, or
unwillingness to comply with rules and regulations can raise questions about an individual’s
reliability, trustworthiness, and ability to protect classified or sensitive information.” Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 15. Among those conditions set forth in the Adjudicative Guidelines that could
raise a disqualifying concern is the “deliberate omission, concealment, or falsification of relevant
facts from any . . . form used to . . . determine national security eligibility or trustworthiness[,]”
and “deliberately . . . concealing or omitting information concerning relevant facts to a . . .
competent medical or mental health professional involved in making recommendation relevant to
any national security eligibility determination[.]” Id. at ¶ 16(a)–(b). Under Guideline E the LSO
alleged that:
1. The Individual told the DOE Psychologist that “he currently consumes alcohol
approximately once per month with an average of two drinks per occasion,” and in the
May 2025 LOI, he stated that his alcohol use “is very infrequent.” Ex. 2 at 8. The DOE
Psychologist determined that his PEth test results were inconsistent with the above self-
reports. Id.
2. In the May 2025 LOI response, the Individual stated that he “consumed only [three] beers
prior to his [2024] arrest.” Id. However, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he
last binge consumed alcohol on the night of the December 2024 DUI, and defined binge
consumption as “consuming [five] or more drinks in one sitting.” Id.
3. The Individual indicated in the July 2025 LOI response that he and the other driver
involved in the December 2024 accident were “amicabl[y] exchanging information” and
that they asked law enforcement to leave upon their arrival. Id. However, the incident
report indicates that the other driver “called [the law enforcement officer] over to the
accident scene[.]” Id.
As explained infra, I find that the first allegation by the LSO does not raise security concerns under
Guideline E. However, the second and third allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of Guideline
E.
Guideline J
Guideline J states that “[c]riminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and
trustworthiness” and that, “[b]y its very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or
willingness to comply with laws, rules, and regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30.
Conditions that could raise a security concern under Guideline J include “[e]vidence . . . of criminal
conduct, regardless of whether the individual was formally charged, prosecuted, or convicted[.]”
Id. at ¶ 31(b). The LSO alleged that:
1. The Individual was arrested and charged with DUI with Property Damage or Personal
Injury in December 2024, “pleaded guilty to a reduced charge of Reckless Driving,” and
was ordered to complete probation. Ex. 2 at 9.
5
2. The Individual was arrested and charged with DUI in March 2022 and was ultimately found
guilty of Reckless Driving Alcohol Related. Id.
The LSO’s invocation of Guideline J is 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 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 eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
Regarding the precipitating incident in 2024, the Individual stated at the hearing that law
enforcement responded to the scene as the parties were exchanging information. Tr. at 25. He then
“asked [law enforcement personnel] to leave,” and that is when their “attitude towards [him]
changed,” and “they smelled alcohol on [him].” Id. at 26. He insisted that the other driver told him
that she did not call law enforcement, and he disagreed with the allegation that the other driver
alerted law enforcement to the scene. Id. at 26–28. He initially testified that he was not intoxicated
during the 2024 incident, as the “way he maneuvered [his] vehicle” to avoid hitting the car in front
of him “probably tells you that [he] was not intoxicated.” Id. at 40. However, in later testimony,
he indicated that he “could have been” intoxicated on the night of the 2024 incident and “would
have to have a test done that night” to be sure. Id. at 41, 49.
The Individual told the DOE Psychologist during the late July 2025 evaluation that December
2024 was the last time that he binge consumed alcohol, which he “defined as consuming five or
more drinks in one sitting.” Ex. 9 at 94. He explained to the DOE Psychologist that he binge
consumed alcohol approximately once per year, and he denied a history of blackouts. Id. He also
told her that he consumed alcohol approximately once per month, “with an average of two drinks
per occasion.” Id. She also noted his reports of intermittent abstinence, and denial of any history
6
of alcohol treatment. Id. The DOE Psychologist concluded in her Report that although the
Individual does not meet sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD), it was troubling that the Individual was involved in two alcohol-related criminal incidents
over the span of three years. Id. at 99–100. Although the Individual “reported infrequent use” of
alcohol, she stated, the aforementioned incidents “suggest periods of impaired decision-making
under the influence.” Id. at 100. She also opined that the Individual’s PEth test suggests “alcohol
consumption within the preceding [two to three] weeks” which is “discrepant with his self-reported
pattern of infrequent, low-quantity use and raises questions about the accuracy of his disclosures
regarding recent drinking behavior.”7 Id. Accordingly, she determined that the Individual
habitually or binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, and that the discrepancy
between his self-reports of alcohol consumption and PEth test results “may reflect a lack of insight,
minimization, or defensiveness in reporting.” Id. at 100–01. She later clarified that for men, binge
drinking consists of five or more drinks “over the course of one occasion.” Tr. at 92
The DOE Psychologist recommended in the Report that in order for the Individual to show
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation he should engage in a “[s]ubstance use
education or relapse prevention program[,]” remain abstinent or engage in “documented low-risk
use” for the span of twelve months, “[d]emonstrate[] [an] understanding of the impact of alcohol
on decision-making and judgment,” and “engage[] in supportive services” like Alcoholics
Anonymous to “increase insight and accountability.” Ex. 9 at 101–02.
The Individual explained in the May 2025 LOI, during the psychological evaluation, and in his
testimony that his current alcohol consumption “is very infrequent,” “low,” and “inconsistent.”
Ex. 6 at 42; Ex. 9 at 94; Tr. at 17. He indicated that “[t]here are some years where [he] chooses not
to drink at all, and other times it can be several months between instances” of alcohol consumption.
Ex. 6 at 42; Ex. 9 at 94. He testified that he was abstinent for about a year in 2021. Tr. at 59–61.
He denied keeping alcohol in his home and estimated his average consumption as “once a month.”
Ex. 6 at 42; Ex. 9 at 94. He stated that he generally does “not consume more than [two] beers” on
the occasions that he does consume alcohol. Ex. 6 at 42; Ex. 9 at 94. He stated that when he does
consume alcohol, it is usually in the context of a special event or celebration involving friends and
family. Ex. 6 at 42. He insisted that “[i]t is very rare that [he] would drink enough alcohol to put
[him] above the legal limit[,]” and that it would require more than two drinks for him to reach
impairment. Id. at 43. He also indicated that he developed “digestive issues” in approximately
2024, and as a result, he “rarely drink[s] anymore[,]” and when he does, it is in small amounts, “as
[his] body now reacts negatively to alcohol.” Id. at 44.
At the hearing, the Individual insisted that he consumed three drinks on the night of the 2024
incident, because he does not consume “five beers or more drinks in one sitting.” Tr. at 29. He
claimed that at the time he answered the DOE Psychologist’s question, he believed that binge
drinking was “anywhere between three and five drinks.” Id. at 30. In later testimony, he indicated
that he “must have misunderstood what binge drinking” is. Id. at 42. When asked whether he was
“not being truthful when [he told the DOE Psychologist] that [he] had five or more drinks” the
night of the 2024 incident, he stated that he did not recall, but that he believed he had said “three
drinks, not five.” Id. at 43.
7 The Individual explained at the hearing that he was not aware that he was going “to supply a lab test of biomarkers”
or that he had to be “tracking [his] alcohol intake.” Tr. at 17.
7
At the hearing, the Individual stated that he disagrees with the DOE Psychologist’s conclusion that
he habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment. Id. at 18. He asserted
that prior to the psychological evaluation, he drank alcohol “around the Fourth of July[,]” which
would have been approximately 18 days prior to the psychological evaluation and PEth test, but
he could not provide an estimate of how much alcohol he had consumed on that occasion, which
is why he provided the DOE Psychologist with an estimate based on his “previous alcohol
consumption pattern[s].”8 Id. at 18–19, 34. He did not have “any intention to mislead [the DOE
Psychologist.” Id. at 19.
When asked if he had completed any of the DOE Psychologist’s recommendations, he stated that
he had completed the terms of his probation and indicated that since the evaluation, he had found
an online self-managed recovery program. Id. at 21, 31–32. At the time of the hearing, the
Individual had attended one group meeting of the self-managed recovery program. Ex. L; Ex. N.
The Individual also stated that his “ongoing alcohol consumption since the incident[] has been
responsible to low levels[,]” but he did not provide any specific indication of how much he was
consuming.9 Tr. at 21. He explained that the self-managed recovery meeting has taught him how
to drink responsibly, “build healthy habits,” and “find balance,” and has offered him “positive
reinforcement.” Id. at 22. He stated that he last consumed alcohol the weekend prior to the hearing,
consuming one drink on Saturday and one drink on Sunday. Id. at 55–56. When asked why he
continues to consume alcohol despite having two alcohol-related incidents, the Individual stated
that there was “no particular reason” and that “[it is] just to go out and share time with friends and
family[.]” Id. at 62. He explained that if he so chose, he “could stop drinking right now[,]” but that
he has not because he does not “have a problem.” Id. at 63.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist confirmed her assessment that the Individual has, on
multiple occasions, “consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.” Id. Specifically, the
Individual consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment on the days of the 2022 and 2024
alcohol-related incidents. Id. at 89–90. The DOE Psychologist stated that although she felt that the
Individual’s engagement with the self-managed recovery meeting is a “positive step[,]” “a
substance use education class would be great.” Id. at 90–91. In later testimony, the DOE
Psychologist determined that the education requirements of the Individual’s probation were
sufficient to meet the “substance use education class” recommendation that she made at the
hearing. Id. at 110. She also suggested “a substance abuse evaluation and then possible treatment
8 The Report does not indicate that the Individual provided the DOE Psychologist with any information regarding his
July 4, 2025, alcohol consumption. In his testimony the Individual was asked whether he knew “when [he] actually
had a drink prior to [the psychological] evaluation and testing[.]” Tr. at 34. The Individual stated, “if [he] drank, it
was around that weekend of the Fourth of July[.]” Id. When asked to clarify, he then responded, “[o]h yeah. No, I
drank. I celebrated Fourth of July[,]” and stated that the PEth test was positive because he “drank that weekend.” Id.
at 34–35. When asked again how much alcohol he had consumed, he could not remember but stated with confidence
that it was “[n]o more than two at once[.]” Id. at 35. When asked about the last time he drank prior to the Fourth of
July, he could not remember and guessed that he consumed alcohol “the week before or two weeks before.” Id. at 35–
36.
9 The Individual provided the results of an “alcohol drug screening test,” which he characterized as an EtG test. Ex.
B; Tr. at 23. The stated detection range for the test was 500 ng/mL. Ex. B. The collection date was mid-January 2025,
and the results were negative. Id.
8
with somebody that specializes in substance misuse[.]”10 Id. at 91. She also suggested “objective
testing of either abstinence or at least low risk, low use drinking[.]” Id. She explained that, at the
time of the hearing, the Individual had not shown evidence of sustained behavioral change because
he had not provided evidence of modified alcohol consumption. Id. at 92–93, 95‒96. She explained
that the Individual lacks “insight around the misuse of alcohol and the . . . problems that have
occurred as a result of the alcohol use.” Id. at 94. She did, however, state that one or two drinks
per month would generally be considered low risk use. Id. at 113–15.
V. Analysis
Guideline E
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that could mitigate security concerns under
Guideline E include:
(a) The individual made prompt, good-faith efforts to correct the omission,
concealment, or falsification before being confronted with the facts;
(b) The refusal or failure to cooperate, omission, or concealment was caused or
significantly contributed to by advice of legal counsel or of a person with
professional responsibilities for advising or instructing the individual specifically
concerning security processes. Upon being made aware of the requirement to
cooperate or provide the information, the individual cooperated fully and truthfully;
(c) The offense is so minor, or so much time has passed, or the behavior is so
infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good
judgment;
(d) The individual has acknowledged the behavior and obtained counseling to change
the behavior or taken other positive steps to alleviate the stressors, circumstances,
or factors that contributed to untrustworthy, unreliable, or other inappropriate
behavior, and such behavior is unlikely to recur;
(e) The individual has taken positive steps to reduce or eliminate vulnerability to
exploitation, manipulation, or duress;
(f) The information was unsubstantiated or from a source of questionable reliability;
and
(g) Association with persons involved in criminal activities was unwitting, has ceased,
or occurs under circumstances that do not cast doubt upon the individual's
10 The DOE Psychologist made this recommendation despite the fact that the Individual underwent an alcohol and
drug evaluation as part of his probation. Ex. 8 at 89. The record does not contain any indication of the results of
evaluation he underwent as part of his probation.
9
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Id. at ¶ 17.
The allegation that the Individual misrepresented his alcohol consumption to the DOE
Psychologist is based on the DOE Psychologist’s interpretation of the PEth test results. As
indicated above, as the DOE Psychologist is not a medical doctor, she is not the appropriate person
to interpret these results, and accordingly, her interpretation was provided little weight. The first
cited allegation under Guideline E in the SSC does not present a security concern, as there is no
indication in the Report from an appropriate professional that the recent alcohol consumption the
Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist could not have resulted in a PEth test result of 22
ng/mL.
However, turning to the other allegations under Guideline E, I do not find the Individual to be a
credible witness. The Individual’s responses to questions at the hearing were frequently vague and
evasive, and I find his testimony to be inconsistent with the other evidence in the record before
me. For instance, he testified that he limits himself to one to two drinks and that he does not drink
to intoxication. This is simply inconsistent with the fact that the Individual was charged with an
alcohol-related offense on two separate occasions; on the first occasion, the Individual’s BAC was
measured at .12 and on the second occasion the responding officers reported that they observed
the Individual to exhibit signs of intoxication. His assertions regarding the traffic accident on the
night of the 2024 incident and his LOI response indicating that he only consumed three beers on
the night of the 2024 incident are notable in that they are self-serving, and further, I did not receive
a credible explanation for the discrepant information that he provided as stated in the second and
third Guideline E allegations. The Individual did not present any evidence to corroborate his
assertions regarding how the 2024 incident unfolded, but I have in the record an account provided
by law enforcement personnel via an incident report, which in light of my concerns with the
Individual’s credibility, I assign greater weight than the Individual’s testimony. The Individual
provided clearly discrepant information regarding how much alcohol he had consumed on the night
of the 2024 incident and only indicated at the hearing that he may have misunderstood what
constituted binge drinking. The Individual made no effort to correct any statements. Mitigating
factor (a) has not been met. As the Individual provided dishonest, inconsistent statements during
these proceedings, I cannot conclude that the offense is so minor, so much time has passed, the
behavior is so infrequent, or it happened under such unique circumstances that it is unlikely to
recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.
Mitigating factor (c) has not been met.
I have no information before me that the Individual’s behavior was the result of advice that he
received from an appropriate person, like an attorney. Mitigating factor (b) is not applicable. There
is no information before me that the Individual is seeking counseling to address the alleged
Guideline E behavior. Mitigating factor (d) is not applicable. The SSC did not allege vulnerability
to exploitation, manipulation, or duress. Mitigating factor (e) is not applicable. The Individual did
not argue that the information cited in the SSC was unsubstantiated or came from a source of
questionable reliability. Mitigating factor (f) is not applicable. The SSC did not allege that the
10
Individual was associated with persons involved in criminal activities. Mitigating factor (g) is not
applicable.
In light of the foregoing, the Individual has failed to resolve the security concerns raised by the
second and third allegations cited under Guideline E.
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.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c), I am required to consider, among other things, “the frequency
and recency of the conduct,” the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other
pertinent behavioral changes,” and “the likelihood of continuation or recurrence.” Irrespective of
how the Individual has characterized his alcohol consumption or whether he agrees with the DOE
Psychologist’s assessment that he habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point of impaired
judgment, the fact remains that since 2022, in a span of less than three years, the Individual was
charged with two DUI offenses. Not only did this alcohol-related behavior occur as recently as
2024, the DUI offenses also occurred in relatively quick succession. Simply based on the number
of the alcohol-related offenses in such a condensed amount of time, I am reluctant to accept the
Individual’s assertions that his consumption is as infrequent as he claims it is. Further, based on
the record, I do not have any information before me that the Individual changed his alcohol
consumption. He insists that he does not consume more than two drinks per occasion, however, as
explained above in the Guideline E analysis, I do not find the Individual a credible narrator of his
alcohol consumption. In the face of these troubling circumstances, the two DUIs and the fact that
the LSO finds his consumption concerning, the Individual admitted that he still continues to
consume alcohol at about the same level as he did prior to the psychological evaluation and only
11
offered the possibility of changing his behavior at some unknown future date, if he so desires. At
the very least, this evidences deeply poor judgment. As indicated by the DOE Psychologist, the
Individual has not shown any change in his behavior as he has no notion that his behavior should
be changed, and therefore, I am not reassured that poor behavior around alcohol will not recur.
As the most recent alcohol-related incident occurred in 2024 and only a few years after his first
known alcohol-related incident, I cannot conclude that enough time has passed, that his behavior
was infrequent or that it happened under unusual circumstances. Mitigating factor (a) has not been
satisfied.
The Individual did not acknowledge his pattern of maladaptive alcohol consumption, has not
participated in counseling for his alcohol consumption, and has not demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations. Mitigating factors (b), (c), and (d), are not applicable.
In light of the foregoing, the Individual has failed to resolve the security concerns raised by the
allegations cited under Guideline G.
Guideline J
The Adjudicative Guidelines provide that conditions that can mitigate security concerns under
Guideline J include:
(a) So much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast
doubt on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) The individual was pressured or coerced into 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 cannot conclude that the Individual has mitigated the alcohol-related Guideline J concerns. As
the last DUI arrest was in 2024, I cannot conclude that it happened so long ago. I also cannot
conclude that it happened under unusual circumstances or is unlikely to recur, as the Individual
has not effectively addressed his underlying alcohol consumption. Therefore, the Individual has
failed to mitigate the alcohol-related criminal behavior pursuant to mitigating factor (a). Although
the Individual presented evidence that he successfully completed the terms of his probation, as
related to the 2024 DUI, and that both DUIs were pled down to a lesser offense, the fact remains
12
that the Guideline J concerns are inextricably intertwined with the Guideline G concerns, as these
concerns stem from Individual’s alcohol consumption. Although the Individual did not dodge
accountability for the actual criminal offenses, he spent most of his testimony downplaying or
understating the underlying behavior, his alcohol consumption. If he does not address the
underlying behavior, then he cannot show sufficient or successful rehabilitation, as the possibility
of repeating the criminal offense still exists As I am tasked with considering the possibility of
recurrence pursuant to 10 C.F.R. Part 710.(c), mitigating factor (d) has not been met.
The Individual did not present any evidence indicating that he was coerced or pressured into
committing the alleged criminal acts. Mitigating factor (b) is not applicable. The Individual did
not present any evidence suggesting that there is no reliable evidence to support that he committed
the alleged offenses. Mitigating factor (c) is not applicable.
In light of the foregoing, the Individual has failed to resolve the security concerns raised by the
allegations cited under Guideline J.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G, E, and J
of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient
evidence to resolve the Guidelines G, E, and J concerns set forth in the SSC. Accordingly, the
Individual has not demonstrated that restoring his security clearance would not endanger the
common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the national interest. Therefore,
I find that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored. This Decision may be
appealed in accordance with the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals