PSH-26-0035

*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 31, 2025 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0035
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 22, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXX (the Individual) to hold an access
authorization under the United States Department of Energy’s (DOE) regulations, set forth at 10
C.F.R. Part 710, “Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter and
Special Nuclear Material or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position.”1 As discussed below, after
carefully considering the record before me in light of the relevant regulations and the National
Security Adjudicative Guidelines for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information
or Eligibility to Hold a Sensitive Position (June 8, 2017) (Adjudicative Guidelines), I conclude
that the Individual’s access authorization should not be restored.
I. Background
The Individual, who was granted an access authorization, properly reported to DOE that in
November 2024, he had been arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI).
Exhibit (Ex.) 8 at 682; Ex. 7 at 58–59, 63. The probable cause statement that was attached to the
aforementioned report indicates that the responding officer was dispatched to the scene of a single
vehicle crash, and that dispatch had informed him to “[b]e [o]n [t]he [l]ook [o]ut for a possible
drunk driver.” Ex. 8 at 70; Ex. 7 at 58–59, 63. The officer stated that when he reached the
Individual, he could smell the “obvious odor of alcohol beverage emitting from his breath,” and
that the Individual admitted that he had been drinking alcohol. Ex. 8 at 70; Ex. 7 at 58–59, 63. The
Individual subsequently showed signs of intoxication during field sobriety tests administered by
the officer, resulting in his arrest for “Aggravated Driving While Under the Influence of
Intoxicating Liquor or any Drug” (ADWUI). Ex. 8 at 70; Ex. 7 at 58–59, 63. The Individual
reported to DOE that he was ordered to complete one year of probation, and that pursuant to 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 The exhibits submitted by DOE were Bates numbered in the upper right corner of each page. This Decision will refer
to the Bates numbering when citing to exhibits submitted by DOE.
2
terms of his probation, he was required to “pay monthly compliance fees,” complete 24 hours of
community service by early June 2025, enroll in treatment by the beginning of May 2025, have an
ignition interlock device placed in his car, attend a victim impact panel, and complete “DWI
School” by early July 2025.3 Ex. 6 at 25, 28.
The Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete two Letters of Interrogatory
(LOI), which the Individual completed and signed in April 2025 and May 2025. Ex. 10; Ex. 9. In
both LOIs, the Individual was asked to provide information regarding the ADWUI incident, as
well as his alcohol consumption. Ex. 10; Ex. 9.
As questions remained, the Individual was asked to undergo a psychiatric evaluation conducted by
a DOE-consultant expert (DOE Psychiatrist) in August 2025. Ex. 11. The DOE Psychiatrist issued
a report (Report) of her findings in the same month. Id. The Individual submitted to a
Phosohatidylethanol (PEth) test in conjunction with the psychiatric evaluation, which yielded a
negative result.4 Ex. 11 at 104. In the Report, the DOE Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with
Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
Id. at 104, 108. The DOE Psychiatrist also diagnosed the Individual with Post-Traumatic Stress
Disorder (PTSD), which she concluded not only “directly influences his substance use disorder[,]”
but is an “emotional, mental, or personality condition . . . that can impair his judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at 108.
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
Concerns (SSC) attached to the Notification Letter, the LSO explained that the derogatory
information raised security concerns under Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption) and I
(Psychological Conditions) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Ex. 1. 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 and presented the testimony of his supervisor and his friend. See
Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0035 (hereinafter cited as “Tr.”) The Individual
also submitted nine exhibits, marked Exhibits A through I. The DOE Counsel submitted fourteen
exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 14 and presented the testimony of the DOE Psychiatrist.
II. Notification Letter
3 The Individual successfully completed “DWI School” in February 2026, attended the victim impact panel in
December 2025, completed community service in July 2025, and filed a motion to remove the interlock device. Ex.
C.
4 “PEth is a metabolite of ethyl alcohol and can only be made when consumed ethyl alcohol reacts with a compound
in the Red Blood Cell (RBC) membrane.” Ex. 11 at 104. PEth is detectable in the blood for approximately 28 days
after an individual has stopped consuming alcohol. Id. A PEth result of 20 ng/mL indicates “moderate to heavy”
alcohol consumption. Id.
3
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 “[a]lcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence . . . regardless of the
frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with
alcohol use disorder” and a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional .
. . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d). Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that the DOE
Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation
or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also alleged that the Individual was arrested and charged with
ADWUI in November 2024. Id. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.
Guideline I
Under Guideline I, “[c]ertain emotional, mental, and personality conditions can impair one’s
judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 27. Conditions that could
raise a security concern and may be disqualifying include “[a]n opinion by a duly qualified mental
health professional that the individual has a condition that may impair judgment, stability,
reliability, or trustworthiness[.]” Id. at ¶ 28(b). Under Guideline I, the LSO alleged that the DOE
Psychiatrist diagnosed the Individual with PTSD, which “is closely associated with alcohol use
disorder and is a condition that impairs his judgment, stability, reliability, and trustworthiness.”
Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I 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.
4
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
The Individual consumed a substantial volume of alcohol on the night of the November 2024
incident. Ex. 10 at 90 (explaining in the first LOI that he consumed six alcoholic teas “and about
a little over a pint” of liquor over the span of six to seven hours; Ex. 11 at 101 (reflecting that he
told the DOE Psychiatrist that on the night of the incident, he began consuming alcohol at 8:00
pm, when he took two to three shots of liquor with two to four beers); see also Ex. 10 at 90
(indicating that the breath test to which the Individual submitted registered a result of .17%).The
Individual testified that on the night of the incident, he was playing video games and consuming
alcohol. Tr. at 48. At some point during the night, he received a message from a loved one in
emotional distress. Id. at 49. He wanted to physically reach his loved one, but he could not secure
a ride. Id. He made the decision to drive himself, and he crashed his vehicle in a single car
accident.5 Id. As his friends knew that he was attempting to drive himself to his desired destination,
one of his friends called emergency services in an attempt to stop the Individual, which resulted in
law enforcement personnel responding to the scene. Id. at 50. The ADWUI charge was ultimately
reduced to Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), and the Individual denied any other alcohol-related
incidents in the first LOI. Ex. 10 at 91–92.
The Report indicates that the Individual had a history of alcohol consumption dating back to his
adolescence, but that more recently he claimed to have consumed alcohol on a “less than monthly”
basis, consuming “[o]nly on special occasions.” Ex. 10 at 92; Ex. 11 at 101. When asked about his
prior consumption at the hearing, the Individual indicated that, once every month or every other
month, he would drink about a pint of “hard liquor” in a single nine-hour sitting. Tr. at 45–46. The
Individual later stated that after the ADWUI, he was consuming approximately eight drinks over
the span of six to seven hours every one to two months.6 Ex. 9 at 84. In his April 2025 LOI, he
stated that his consumption had changed and that he would generally consume “no more than [six]
beers over the span of four to six hours, and that this pattern of consumption began approximately
two to three months before his completion of the LOI. Ex. 10 at 92–93. The Individual told the
DOE Psychiatrist that, following his arrest, he would consume three to four drinks “infrequently”
or “less than once a month.” Ex. 11 at 102. He consumed alcohol prior to the August 2025
evaluation, consuming a beer on the prior Sunday, and “two beers and two shots . . . ten days prior
to the evaluation.” Id. At the hearing, the Individual also admitted that he consumed alcohol in
April 2025. Tr. at 82. He stated that he consumed three beers on that occasion. Id. at 82–83. The
Individual confirmed that when he would drink, it was “a way of coping with the issues [he] was
having at home[.]” Tr. at 45.
Following the incident, the Individual began reporting to his employer’s Occupational Medicine
Department (Occ Med). Tr. at 62. Through Occ Med, the Individual submitted to PEth tests. Id.
The Individual submitted into the record six negative PEth test results from October 2025,
5 The Report indicates that when he left in his own car, he took alcohol with him and consumed
“another beer and [two to three] more shots.” Ex. 11 at 101. The Report also states that he “blacked out” at that point,
regained consciousness, and attempted to proceed to the loved one’s location, only to crash the car. Id.
6 At the hearing, the Individual testified that around the time of the incident, he “was going through a lot,” and
accordingly, he “would drink fairly often” but that he “[would not] say that [his consumption] was concerning.” Tr.
at 44. He admitted that in the past, his alcohol consumption was impacting his physical and mental health. Id. at 47.
5
December 2025, February 2026, March 2026, April 2026, and May 2026.7 Ex. D at 59, 62–66. He
also submitted one positive PEth test result from November 2024.8 Id. at 60. Occ Med referred the
Individual to his employer’s Employee Assistance Program’s (EAP) six-week alcohol education
course, which the Individual completed in February 2025. Id. at 58, 67.
Per the terms of the Individual’s probation, he was required to seek intensive outpatient treatment,
which he did in mid-November 2024. Ex. 10 at 95; Ex. B at 8. Treatment intake notes indicate that
the Individual denied having a problem with alcohol, and that he was diagnosed with AUD,
Uncomplicated, Severe. Ex. B at 8–9. After the initial assessment, it was determined that the
Individual only required twelve to sixteen sessions of individual therapy, and the Individual
completed sixteen sessions of individual therapy and forty-eight sessions of group therapy.9 Id. at
6, 14. In individual therapy, the Individual and his therapist focused on such things as identifying
alternatives to substance abuse and understanding and appraising behaviors and consequences. Id.
at 17. The Individual completed twelve weeks of treatment and was successfully discharged in
February 2025. Ex. 10 at 95; Ex. B at 44. The discharge plan indicated that the Individual desired
to continue with aftercare services. Ex. B at 48. The Individual indicated that he continued with
aftercare services beginning in March 2025, and he stopped attending aftercare when his therapist
left the practice in July 2025. Tr. at 73, 79–80; Ex. F. His aftercare discharge letter indicates that
he had been “successfully” discharged from aftercare. Ex. H.
In the Report, the DOE Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual suffers from AUD, Mild, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.10 Ex. 11 at 104. Specifically, the DOE
Psychiatrist concluded that the Individual consumed alcohol in “larger amounts over a longer
period than was intended[,]” the Individual “need[ed] markedly increased amounts of alcohol to
achieve intoxication or desired effect,” and his alcohol consumption “continued despite knowledge
of having a persistent or recurrent physical or psychological problem that is likely to have been
caused or exacerbated by alcohol.” Id. at 104–05. The DOE Psychiatrist also concluded that the
Individual suffers from PTSD, and that he drank alcohol for the purpose of self-medication. Id. at
106. In concluding that the Individual suffers from PTSD, the DOE Psychiatrist took into
consideration the Individual’s reports of “[u]nwanted” and “upsetting memories[,]” nightmares,
and “[e]motional distress after exposure to traumatic reminders.” Id. She also noted that the
Individual “had significant difficulty in reporting his childhood traumas[,]” evidencing
“[a]voidance of trauma-related stimuli after the trauma.” Id. at 107. She also opined that the
Individual had an “[i]nability to recall key features of the trauma[,]” experienced “[o]verly
7 OCC Med did not conduct PEth testing on a monthly basis prior to February 2026. Ex. I.
8 The Individual testified that from November 2024 to October 2025, he was subject to weekly random urine testing
via Occ Med. Tr. at 64. He did not submit those test results but stated that there was one positive result “in the spring
of 2025.” Id.
9 The outpatient treatment program requires three group therapy sessions per week and one individual therapy session
per week. Ex. F. Individual therapy sessions take one hour to complete, and group therapy sessions last two-and-a-
half hours. Id.
10 At the hearing, the Individual stated that he considered his behavior prior to the November 2024 incident to be that
of an alcoholic. Tr. at 85, 100–01. He testified that an alcoholic is “someone [who] drinks every day” and “drinks to
get intoxicated.” Id. at 100.
6
negative thoughts and assumptions about [himself] and the world[,]” had a “[n]egative affect[,]”
felt isolated, experienced “[d]ifficulty experiencing positive affect[,]” and had difficulty
concentrating and sleeping. Id. Accordingly, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the
Individual address his maladaptive alcohol consumption and his PTSD. Id. at 106. If the Individual
failed to address both diagnoses, then the DOE Psychiatrist opined that his AUD would likely
worsen. Id. The DOE Psychiatrist indicated that “trauma-focused interventions can mitigate the
physical and psychological risks[.]” Id. In order to show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation from the AUD diagnosis, the DOE Psychiatrist recommended that the Individual
submit to and provide “[six] months of negative PEth tests[,]” work with a therapist “until goals
are met[,]” attend Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or similar meetings on a weekly basis, and provide
adequate documentation evidencing the same.11 Id. at 108. The DOE Psychiatrist also indicated
that in order to address his PTSD, the Individual “should undergo a medication management
evaluation[,]” and “work with a therapist experienced in treating childhood and complex
trauma[.]”12 Id. at 108–09.
The Individual testified that his last drink of alcohol was the weekend before the August 2025
psychiatric evaluation. Tr. at 90, 99. Instead of consuming alcohol to cope with difficult
circumstances, he reads and goes to the gym. Id. He has “found hobbies that [are] more healthy
than alcohol[,]” like drawing, participating in a book club, and attending car shows. Id. at 88–90.
He stated that he is “just too busy to drink anymore.” Id. at 89. He denied any cravings for alcohol.
Id. He also does not intend to consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 90. Now that he has stopped
consuming alcohol, he no longer experiences depressive episodes, and he has lost over fifty
pounds. Id. at 100. Regarding his mental health diagnosis, he explained that he had informed the
DOE Psychiatrist that he was experiencing nightmares, had difficulty sleeping, and would have
“upsetting memories [from his] childhood.” Id. at 92. He explained that currently, those symptoms
have largely dissipated, and that although he has difficulty sleeping, it is because he is “staying up
on [his] own.” Id.
The Individual’s supervisor of “a couple years” testified that although he sees the Individual on a
daily basis at work, he does not socialize with the Individual outside of work. Id. at 13–14.
Accordingly, he has never seen the Individual consume alcohol, but he also confirmed that the
Individual’s alcohol consumption had never impacted his work performance. Id. at 15. He
indicated that the Individual “has been honest” and that he would like to retain the Individual as
an employee. Id.
The Individual’s close friend testified that the Individual will visit him for the weekend on
occasion, and that he has not seen the Individual “drink in a long time.” Id. at 29–30. He stated
that although he had seen the Individual in an intoxicated state before the ADWUI, he had not seen
the Individual consume any alcohol after the incident. Id. at 30. The Individual’s friend stated that
he consumes beer, and that he offers the Individual alcohol when he visits. Id. at 31. Despite being
11 The Individual testified that he went to AA “a few times[,]” but found the environment to be “depressing” and he
stopped attending. Tr. at 75–76, 99. When asked if he would attend a different, specific program that is similar to AA,
he explained that the program to which DOE Counsel was referring occurred during the week, which would not work
with his schedule. Id. at 76.
12 The Individual explained that he attempted to seek PTSD-specific treatment to help with more complex trauma, but
he did not receive a call back from the program that he contacted, despite being told that he was qualified for the
program after completing the appropriate paperwork to join. Tr. at 76–77; Ex. G.
7
offered alcohol, the Individual will decline the offer, and he will tell his friend that he does not
consume alcohol anymore.13 Id. at 31–32. The Individual’s friend testified that when they would
drink together, they would drink “enough to . . . catch a buzz,” and “maybe get intoxicated every
once in a while.” Id. at 37. The Individual’s friend never saw the Individual leave his home in an
intoxicated or impaired state, and outside of the ADWUI, he had never known the Individual to
operate a vehicle in an intoxicated state. Id. at 37–38. He never believed that the Individual’s
alcohol consumption was concerning. Id. at 38. When asked if he would be able to assist the
Individual in a time of need, the Individual’s friend confirmed that he believes he is a part of the
Individual’s support network. Id. at 38–39. The Individual has not mentioned any alcohol cravings
to his friend, and as far as his friend knows, the Individual has remained sober. Id. at 39.
After listening to the testimony offered and reviewing the evidence in the record, the DOE
Psychiatrist determined that the Individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation with respect to his AUD diagnosis. Id. at 117. She concluded that as the Individual
complied with the PEth testing recommendation and remained abstinent but acknowledged that
the Individual had not complied with the recommendation that he participate in AA. Id. at 116.
She concluded that the Individual was in early remission and that his prognosis was “very good.”
Id. With respect to her recommendation that the Individual be evaluated for medication
management for PTSD, the DOE Psychiatrist indicated that if the Individual “wants to do it
through therapy, that is fine” especially since “he reports that he has gotten much better in terms
of his symptoms, especially with sleep, and with the abstinence of [sic] alcohol.” Id. at 114. She
recognized that the Individual did exhibit “a little more distress around a lot of those [PTSD]
symptoms.” Id. Although the Individual “has attempted” to meet her recommendations, the DOE
Psychiatrist indicated that she would “like to see him a little bit more in therapy and counseling.”
Id. at 115. The DOE Psychiatrist confirmed that even though he reported that his symptoms were
milder, the Individual still met the diagnostic criteria for PTSD and clarified that the Individual
had not met the recommendations. Id. at 118. She explained that the Individual needs dedicated
PTSD treatment to break the cycle of PTSD fueling his alcohol consumption, which in turn, would
exacerbate PTSD symptoms. Id. at 120.
V. Analysis
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;
13 The Individual testified that when he is around other people who are drinking, he is still able to “sit there and have
fun without alcohol,” which offers him “a sense of relief.” Tr. at 88. No one gives him “backlash” for declining an
alcoholic drink. Id.
8
(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.
The Individual enrolled in and completed an intensive outpatient treatment program immediately
after the November 2024 incident. He also testified that he continued with aftercare, only ending
his participation when his therapist left the practice in July 2025. Although the Individual admitted
that he had consumed alcohol a handful of times after receiving treatment, the record does contain
six negative PEth test results, even though they are not all consecutive. The Individual testified to
a complete lifestyle change to support his ongoing abstinence. Instead of consuming alcohol, he
now reads books, goes to car shows, and spends time drawing. The Individual has learned the skills
to refuse alcohol in social settings, and he has stated that he finds it a relief to be able to refuse
alcohol. The Individual continued his alcohol education, in addition to that which was required by
the court system, by taking an EAP course. Importantly, the DOE Psychiatrist testified that the
Individual met the recommendations that she made with respect to his alcohol consumption, has a
good prognosis, is in early remission, and has shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation and
reformation. Accordingly, I find that the Individual mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to
mitigating factors (b) and (d).
Mitigating factor (c) is not applicable because the Individual is not currently in treatment. With
respect to mitigating factor (a), the Individual last consumed alcohol in August 2025, which was
less than twelve months ago. Further, the Individual consumed large amounts of alcohol every
month or every other month, demonstrating a regularity in his behavior. In addition, there is no
indication that the Individual’s alcohol consumption occurred under such unusual circumstance
that would make it unlikely to recur or does not cast doubt on the individual’s current reliability,
trustworthiness, or judgment. The Individual has not mitigated the stated concerns pursuant to
mitigating factor (a).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns
asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines indicate that an individual may mitigate Guideline I concerns if:
9
(a) The identified condition is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual
has demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan;
(b) The individual has voluntarily entered a counseling or treatment program for a
condition that is amenable to treatment, and the individual is currently receiving
counseling or treatment with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified mental
health professional;
(c) Recent opinion by a duly qualified mental health professional employed by, or
acceptable to and approved by, the U.S. Government that an individual’s previous
condition is under control or in remission, and has a low probability of recurrence
or exacerbation;
(d) The past psychological/psychiatric condition was temporary, the situation has been
resolved, and the individual no longer shows indications of emotional instability;
(e) There is no indication of a current problem.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 29.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c), I am required to consider, among other things, “the likelihood of
continuation or recurrence[.]” In the case at hand, the Individual’s PTSD and substance misuse
were intertwined, each exacerbating the other. Accordingly, both problems required treatment, so
that the cycle of exacerbation ceases. While the Individual has addressed his alcohol consumption
by seeking treatment for his AUD diagnosis, he has not treated his PTSD. Accordingly, it is
possible for the Individual to experience worsening PTSD symptoms. As the DOE Psychiatrist
explained in her testimony and the Report, the Individual was using alcohol to self-medicate his
PTSD symptoms. As of the time of the hearing, the Individual had not specifically treated his
PTSD. Although the Individual has treated his AUD, I have no assurance that his PTSD symptoms
will not worsen, causing him to turn back to some form of self-medication, whether that be alcohol
or a different form of relief. Furthermore, any self-medication that could result would worsen the
Individual’s PTSD symptoms, causing the cycle to perpetuate and impairing the Individual’s
judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. Importantly, although the DOE Psychiatrist noted a
reduction in the severity of PTSD symptoms experienced by the Individual, the Individual’s PTSD
has not received targeted treatment.
As the Individual is not receiving any treatment for his PTSD, mitigating factors (a) and (b) are
not applicable.
Mitigating factor (c) is not applicable, as the DOE Psychiatrist did not conclude that the
Individual’s PTSD was under control or in remission, and had a low probability of recurrence.
Mitigating factor (d) is not applicable, as the Individual’s PTSD remains active and has a chance
of recurrence.
Mitigating factor (e) is not applicable, as the Individual does have a current problem.
10
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guidelines G and I of
the Adjudicative Guidelines. After considering all the evidence, both favorable and unfavorable,
in a comprehensive, common-sense manner, including weighing all the testimony and other
evidence presented at the hearing, I find that the Individual has brought forth sufficient evidence
to resolve the security concerns alleged by the LSO under Guideline G, but not the Guideline I
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