PSH-26-0037

*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: January 2, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0037
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 7, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Erin C. Weinstock, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 him to hold an access
authorization. Exhibit (Ex.) 1 at 2.2 On September 25, 2025, the Individual was arrested and
charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and Carrying a Concealed Weapon Under the
Influence (CCWUI). Ex. 6 at 122–23. As a result of this incident, the Individual completed a
Personnel Security Information Reporting Form on September 29, 2025, reporting his arrest, the
charges against him, and providing more details about his alcohol use. Ex. 7. Subsequently, the
Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a letter of interrogatory (LOI), which
the Individual did on October 12, 2025. Ex. 9. Prior to the September 2025 incident, the Individual
had been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) in 2020, and his providers recommended
that he remain abstinent from alcohol consumption. Ex. 5 at 89–90. In addition to the 2025
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 References to the Local Security Office’s (LSO) exhibits are to the exhibit number and the PDF page number from
the LSO’s exhibit notebook.
- 2 -
incident, the Individual relapsed and resumed binge consumption of alcohol on at least two
occasions after his diagnosis. Ex. 9 at 147.
The LSO subsequently issued the Individual a Notification Letter advising him that it possessed
reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility for access authorization.
Ex. 2 at 6–8. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained
that the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. Id.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 3. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge in this matter, and I conducted an administrative hearing. The LSO
submitted nine exhibits (Ex. 1–9). The Individual submitted twelve exhibits (Ex. A–L). The
Individual presented four witnesses and also testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA
Case No. PSH-26-0037 (Tr.). The LSO did not present any witnesses. Id.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS
Guideline G, under which the LSO raised the security concerns, relates to security risks arising
from excessive alcohol consumption. “Excessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise
of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses and can raise questions about an
individual’s reliability and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Conditions that
could raise a security concern include: “alcohol-related incidents away from work,” “habitual or
binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgement,” and “alcohol consumption,
which is not in accordance with treatment recommendations, after a diagnosis of alcohol use
disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (c), (f). In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s
September 2025 arrest for DUI and CCWUI. Ex. 2 at 6. The LSO also cited the Individual’s history
of binge and habitual consumption of alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and his continued
consumption of alcohol after being diagnosed with an alcohol use disorder against treatment
recommendations. Id. at 7–8. The aforementioned allegations justify the LSO’s invocation of
Guideline G.
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
Dep’t 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).
- 3 -
An 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). An individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting their eligibility for an access authorization. The
Part 710 regulations are drafted to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. at
§ 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
The Individual believes that his alcohol use increased starting in 2012, when he returned to the
United States from an overseas military deployment. Ex. 9 at 145. When he returned from his
deployment, he was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and had some
symptoms of anxiety and depression. Id.
In 2014, the Individual was concerned about his alcohol consumption, and he sought treatment
through programs available to him as an active-duty member of the military. Tr. at 98. The
Individual was evaluated and told that the appropriate intervention for him would be a week-long
course about alcohol use, which he attended. Id. at 73, 98.
From 2012 to about 2020, the Individual went through periods where he would drink between four
and six beers in an evening, and, around spring of 2020, he began regularly consuming eight or
more beers at home alone with his wife and newborn child. Ex. 9 at 146. In September 2020, the
Individual’s direct military supervisor expressed concern to the Individual about his alcohol
consumption. Id. In October 2020, shortly after the Individual had been transferred to a new
command, the Individual’s wife expressed concern about his alcohol consumption and mental
health more generally. Id.
In November 2020, the Individual asked for help from his command and completed a thirty-day
inpatient program for alcohol treatment. Id. at 147. While participating in this program, the
Individual was diagnosed for the first time with AUD and advised that he should not consume
alcohol. Tr. at 98. After completing the inpatient program, the Individual maintained sobriety for
fourteen months, attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, working with a sponsor, and
practicing the twelve steps of AA. Ex. 9 at 147; Tr. at 99.
The Individual’s sponsor passed away in April 2022, which led the Individual to experience grief,
depression, and a relapse. Ex. 9 at 147; Tr. at 75–76. The Individual began to consume between
six and ten beers a day after work. Ex. 9 at 147; Tr. at 100. In July 2022, the Individual asked for
help and attended another thirty-day inpatient treatment program. Ex. 9 at 147. After being
discharged from the program, the Individual found a new sponsor and worked through the steps
of AA again. Id. He maintained his sobriety for twenty months. Id.
In February 2024, the Individual’s wife got a new job in a different city than where they were
living. Id. The Individual’s wife and children moved to the new city while the Individual stayed
behind to pack their old home, renovate it, and sell it. Id. While alone in the old home, the
- 4 -
Individual became isolated, attended fewer AA meetings, and relapsed, consuming between one
and two liters of wine each night. Id. The Individual requested help from his command and went
to inpatient treatment at two locations where clinicians assessed how his PTSD, depression, and
anxiety affected his AUD. Tr. at 104. The Individual spent sixty days total in treatment. Id. at 105–
06. While in treatment at this time, the Individual worked with a group that provides service dogs
to veterans, and it was determined that he would be a good candidate based on his medical history.
Id. at 104. The Individual left the military in summer 2024, after he completed treatment. Id. at
76–77. After being discharged from treatment, the Individual maintained his sobriety for a period
of twenty months. Id. at 108.
Around early September 2025, the Individual relapsed. Id. at 77. On September 25, 2025, the
Individual took time off of work to go pick up his new car in a nearby, but unfamiliar town. Id. at
78. Because the Individual was unfamiliar with the area, he took his gun with him for protection.
Id. He returned home without incident, but accidentally left the weapon in his car. Id. When the
Individual got home, he consumed approximately one and a half liters of wine and then realized
he was missing ingredients he needed for dinner. Id. at 79. The Individual decided to drive
approximately half a mile to the grocery store. Id. When he got in his car, he realized he had left
his gun in the car and put it in his waistband so he would remember to put it in his safe when he
returned home. Id. On the way to the grocery store, he stopped to talk to some construction workers
who were doing work in front of the local fire station. Id. at 81. According to the police report,
someone called the local police department, asking for them to perform a wellness check on the
Individual. Ex. 6 at 124. When police arrived, they observed that the Individual appeared to be
intoxicated and eventually also discovered that he had his gun in his waistband. Id. at 124–25. The
Individual was charged with DUI and CCWUI. Id. at 126. He ultimately entered a plea agreement
that required him to complete one year of supervised probation and comply with the requirements
of his alcohol treatment program. Ex. B at 11–12.
Shortly after his arrest, the Individual entered into another inpatient treatment program. Tr. at 109.
The Individual completed the six-week program on November 12, 2025. Id.; Ex. H at 83. The staff
psychologist at the inpatient treatment program stated that the Individual had successfully
completed the program and recommended that he continue “active engagement in outpatient
mental health and substance use disorder treatment” as outlined in the aftercare plan that he
developed with his providers while in the inpatient program. Ex. H at 83. The Individual’s aftercare
plan contained many goals, including several directly related to the continuing treatment of his
AUD. Ex. I. In the plan, the Individual said that he intended to: (1) complete his twelve-week
intensive outpatient program (IOP); (2) attend AA at least three times a week; (3) complete the 4th
and 5th AA steps by the end of February; (4) meet with his behavioral health specialist weekly;
(5) meet with his psychiatrist every two weeks; and (6) participate in outpatient substance abuse
treatment for about two years after completing the IOP. Id. at 86; Ex. J (explanation of benefit
forms showing that the Individual attended weekly meetings with his behavioral health specialist
when he was not in inpatient care from the end of September 2025 to the end of January 2026);
Ex. K (explanation of benefit forms showing the Individual attended appointments with a
psychiatrist on December 30, 2025, and January 27, 2026); Ex. L (letter showing the Individual’s
enrollment in an IOP). The aftercare plan also included a number of spiritual, physical, and
interpersonal goals that the Individual believes will help to support his abstinence from alcohol.
Ex. I at 86–87.
- 5 -
The Individual testified that he last consumed alcohol on October 4, 2025. Tr. at 109. To support
his testimony that he has not consumed alcohol since October 4, 2025, the Individual submitted
the results of urine tests from October 10, 2025, October 15, 2025, October 21, 2025, October 26,
2025, November 5, 2025, and November 10, 2025.3 Ex. M. The tests were all negative. Id.
At the time of the hearing, the Individual testified that he was attending three-hour long IOP
sessions three times weekly,4 going to two AA meetings per week, seeing his psychiatrist
approximately monthly, and seeing his behavioral specialist weekly. Tr. at 117–18, 123. He is also
working on the steps of AA with his sponsor and is currently on step 8. Id. at 114–15. After the
Individual completes the IOP, he plans to participate in outpatient programs offered through the
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) to provide him with continued support. Id. at 118–19.
The Individual got a service dog about two and a half months prior to the hearing. Id. at 105. The
Individual completed ten days of training with the dog, and now the dog helps the Individual to
manage stress, be more comfortable, and interact with the public more confidently. Id. at 115–16.
The Individual has also improved his physical health while in recovery. Id. at 86. He attends a
yoga or Pilates class every day of the week except for one, when he goes swimming at a local rec
center. Id. at 86–87.
The Individual’s pastor testified that the Individual reached out to him while he was in inpatient
treatment in October 2025 to ask for support when the Individual returned home from that
treatment. Tr. at 37. The pastor has worked with people having problems with substance abuse in
the past, and he agreed to help as long as the Individual was taking other steps as part of a treatment
plan. Id. The Individual testified that during his previous attempts at recovery, he struggled because
he lacked “spirituality.” Id. at 124. Recently, he has become more in-tune with his spirituality and
his religion, which he testified has helped him get more out of AA. Id. He now attends church on
a weekly basis, which he had never done before. Id. at 121, 125.
In addition to everything described above, the Individual testified that his recent time in inpatient
care emphasized the importance of focusing on the whole of a person’s health. Id. at 112. He feels
that he has more support from his family and community than ever before and that will help him
to succeed where he has not in the past. Id. at 112–13.
3 The tests that the Individual submitted do not indicate what period of time the results cover. Generally, urine tests
detect alcohol use that occurred between twelve and seventy-two hours prior to the test. American Addiction Centers,
How Long Does Alcohol Stay in Your System?, available at https://americanaddictioncenters.org/alcohol/how-long-
in-system.
In addition to the tests mentioned above, the Individual submitted drug screens from January 21, 2026, January 23,
2026, February 16, 2026, and March 2, 2026. Ex. M. These drug screens do not appear to have included any test for
alcohol use.
4 As part of his IOP, the Individual sees a therapist on a weekly basis. Tr. at 109–10. It is unclear from the record if
that weekly session is included in the nine hours of IOP the Individual participates in each week or in addition to that
time.
- 6 -
The Individual’s former coworker testified that they had previously worked together, handling
classified information when they were both in the military, and that, in his experience, the
Individual could be trusted to follow procedures related to classified information. Id. at 17–19.
The Individual’s friend testified that the Individual had been open with him about his struggles
with alcohol consumption and his attempts to seek help for his AUD. Id. at 49–50.
The Individual’s current supervisor testified that based on his observations at work, the Individual
is reliable. Id. at 58.
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline G
An individual may be able to mitigate security concerns under Guideline G through the following
conditions:
(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 maladaptive alcohol use, provides evidence
of actions taken to overcome this problem, and has demonstrated a clear and
established pattern of modified alcohol consumption or abstinence in
accordance with treatment recommendations;
(c) The individual is participating in counseling or a treatment program, has no
previous history of treatment and relapse, and is making satisfactory progress
in a treatment program; and
(d) The individual has successfully completed a treatment program along with any
required aftercare, and has demonstrated a clear and established pattern of
modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment
recommendations.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23.
As an initial matter, I note that the steps the Individual has taken to attempt to overcome his disease
are quite impressive. However, I am required by the regulations to consider the “nature, extent,
and seriousness of the conduct,” as well as “the likelihood of . . . recurrence.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
The Individual has struggled with his alcohol consumption for more than a decade and has been
seeking treatment in some form or another for about six years. He has achieved long periods of
sobriety, but he has also had several relapses during this time period. The hearing in this matter
occurred approximately five months after the Individual’s most recent relapse. Given the
seriousness and extent of the Individual’s problems with alcohol consumption, and his history of
- 7 -
relapse after much more prolonged periods of sobriety, I cannot find that the security concerns are
resolved here.
As to mitigating factor (a), the Individual has been struggling with his alcohol use for over a
decade. In that time period, he sought treatment on several occasions, had periods of sobriety, and
had several relapses. His struggle with alcohol consumption occurred in many different
environments, and during many different periods in his life. He has relapsed and resumed alcohol
use after several periods of sobriety that were longer than the five-month period between the
incident that precipitated these proceedings and the hearing. As such, I cannot say that so much
time has passed, the behavior was so infrequent, or that it happened under such unusual
circumstances that the mitigating conditions are met. Therefore, mitigating factor (a) does not
resolve the security concerns.
The Individual acknowledged that his alcohol consumption was problematic, and he has taken
significant steps to overcome the problem, including attending an inpatient treatment program and
attending an IOP after he completed the inpatient program. However, I cannot find that less than
five months of abstinence from alcohol is sufficient to demonstrate a “clear and established pattern
of . . . abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations,” particularly in light of the
severity of the Individual’s struggles with alcohol. Further, while the alcohol testing results that
the Individual provided showed some proof that he has been abstinent, the provided testing did not
fully cover the period of time during which the Individual testified that he had been abstinent from
alcohol, and the Individual provided no other corroborating evidence or testimony to directly
support his testimony that he was not currently consuming alcohol. Therefore, the security
concerns are not resolved pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
The Individual has undergone treatment for his AUD on several occasions in the past and on at
least three occasions has relapsed and resumed consuming alcohol. Therefore, I cannot find that
the security concerns are resolved pursuant to mitigating factor (c).
The Individual provided documentary evidence that he completed a six-week-long inpatient
rehabilitation program on November 12, 2025, and also provided a copy of his extensive aftercare
plan. The Individual’s testimony and other exhibits show that he has made impressive progress on
that plan; however, that progress is not sufficient for me to say that he has completed “any required
aftercare.” At the time of the hearing, the Individual was attending fewer AA meetings than the
goal stated in his aftercare plan, seeing his psychiatrist less often, and had not even begun his post-
IOP substance abuse programming. Further, as explained above, even assuming the Individual’s
urinalysis tests were sufficient support for his testimony that he has not consumed alcohol since
October 2025, I cannot find that five months of abstinence from alcohol consumption is sufficient
to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence, particularly given the severity of the
Individual’s struggles with alcohol. Consequently, the security concerns are not resolved pursuant
to mitigating factor (d).
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline G.
- 8 -
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guideline G of the Adjudicative Guidelines. After
considering all the relevant information, 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 security concerns
set forth in the Summary of 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.
Erin C. Weinstock
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals