PSH-26-0055

*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 23, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0055
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 6, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Erin C. Weinstock, 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 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 7.2 On July 24, 2025, the Individual was cited for open container.
Ex. 5 at 25. Subsequently, the Local Security Office (LSO) asked the Individual to complete a
letter of interrogatory (LOI), which the Individual did on August 26, 2025. Ex. 6. Upon receipt of
the responses to the LOI, the LSO asked the Individual to undergo a psychological evaluation in
October 2025, by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist), which resulted in a finding
that the Individual met sufficient Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – Fifth
Edition (DSM-5) criteria for a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 4 at 44.
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 -
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. 1 at 7–9. 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. 2. 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 ten exhibits (Ex. 1–10). The Individual submitted thirty-four exhibits (Ex. A–HH). The
Individual presented three witnesses and also testified on his own behalf. Hearing Transcript, OHA
Case No. PSH-26-0055 (Tr.). The LSO presented one witness. 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” and “diagnosis
by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional . . . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a),
(d). In citing Guideline G, the LSO relied upon the Individual’s July 2025 citation for open
container. Ex. 1 at 6. The LSO also cited the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of AUD, Moderate.
Id. 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).
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.
- 3 -
IV. FINDINGS OF FACT
On July 24, 2025, the Individual stopped at a friend’s home on the way home from work. Ex. 2 at
12. He opened a beer and began to consume it. Id. After he had consumed about half of the beer,
the Individual’s wife called him and told him that he needed to come home due to a family
emergency. Id. The Individual poured the rest of the beer out and threw the can into the bottom of
his car. Id. While he was driving home, he was pulled over for speeding. Id. The Individual passed
the field sobriety tests administered by the law enforcement officer, but when he showed the law
enforcement officer the empty can in the car, he was cited for open container. Id. at 12–13.
As a result of this citation, the Individual was asked to meet with a psychologist associated with
human reliability program (HRP Psychologist) at his workplace. Ex. 7 at 39. He told the HRP
Psychologist that he typically consumed about “two beers once every other week.” Id. On August
4, 2025, the Individual underwent a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test3 at the request of the HRP
Psychologist. Id. That test came back positive at a level of 170 ng/mL. Id. Because, according to
the opinion of a medical doctor, this result indicated that the Individual was consuming more
alcohol than he reported, he was asked to undergo another PEth test on August 19, 2025. Id. at 40.
That test came back positive at a level of 142 ng/mL. Id. While this result was lower than the first
test, according to the interpretation by the medical doctor, it still indicated that the Individual was
consuming more alcohol than he had disclosed. Id.
The Individual was evaluated by the DOE Psychologist on October 7, 2025. Id. at 38. As part of
his evaluation, the Individual underwent a PEth test on the same date. Id. at 41. The PEth test came
back positive at a level of 437 ng/mL. Id. According to the medical doctor that interpreted the PEth
test, this result was not consistent with the four to five standard drinks every other week that the
Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist. Id. However, the DOE Psychologist’s report noted
that the Individual had reported going on a four-day cruise in the week prior to the evaluation
where he consumed “five or six drinks” each day. Id. at 40.
After the Individual completed the evaluation, the DOE Psychologist issued a report in which he
concluded that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, and he had
reported a pattern of binge drinking. Id. at 44. In order for the Individual to show rehabilitation,
the DOE Psychologist stated that the Individual should: (1) complete an intensive outpatient
program (IOP) and follow all discharge instructions; (2) participate in weekly Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings with documentation of attendance or participation in a comparable
support group; and (3) maintain abstinence for at least twelve months as corroborated by monthly
negative PEth test results. Id.
The Individual testified at the hearing that he last consumed alcohol on January 10, 2026. Tr. at
69. To support this testimony, he provided five negative PEth tests dated February 10, 2026; March
5, 2026; April 9, 2026; May 6, 2026; June 8, 2026. Ex. Q; Ex. R; Ex. S; Ex T; Ex. DD (PEth test
3 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 7 at
49. “PEth reflects the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28–30 days.” Id. at 51.
- 4 -
results). He also acknowledged that before he stopped consuming alcohol, he had been “drinking
too much.” Tr. at 83, 89, 100–01.
The Individual began attending in-person SMART Recovery4 group meetings on January 12, 2026.
Ex. EE. He has attended meetings on a weekly basis since then, excepting weeks when the meeting
was canceled and one occasion when he was out-of-town. Id.; Tr. at 35, 74–75. The Individual
testified that he enjoyed attending the SMART Recovery meetings because it was “a big group
therapy session.” Tr. at 69–70. The Individual also explained that he found the worksheets he
completed as a part of SMART Recovery to be very thought-provoking and that the worksheets
made him think about how to balance his life. Id. at 76–78 (discussing several worksheets the
Individual completed in SMART Recovery). The SMART Recovery facilitator testified that the
Individual actively participated in every meeting that he had attended, sharing with everyone how
he is doing and talking about his answers from SMART Recovery worksheets. Id. at 38–39. He
also shared that the Individual regularly arrives to the meeting early and stays late to interact and
form community with the other individuals attending the meeting. Id. at 40–41. Based on his
observation of the Individual at these meetings, he believes that the Individual is taking his
recovery very seriously. Id. at 47.
The Individual shared with the SMART Recovery facilitator that not consuming alcohol made him
feel better and that he also appreciated that it made his wife happy. Id. at 50. The Individual later
told the SMART Recovery facilitator about how he was proud that he had gone golfing with friends
without consuming any alcohol, and he had fun. Id. at 51. The Individual also told the SMART
Recovery facilitator that he would like to become a facilitator himself so that he can help other
people in his community. Id. at 72.
In March 2026, the Individual began attending an IOP. Ex. B (certificate indicating when the
Individual began and completed the IOP). The Individual completed twenty-five three-hour
sessions of the IOP in May 2026. Id.; Tr. at 70–71. After the Individual completed the IOP, he
began to attend the IOP’s continuing support group on a weekly basis. Ex. CC (letter from IOP
indicating the Individual’s continued participation); Tr. at 71. He explained that in the IOP and
SMART Recovery he was able to reflect on “persons, places, and things” associated with the
consumption of alcohol. Tr. at 88–89. Talking about this made the Individual realize that around
certain people and while participating in certain activities, he was consuming too much alcohol.
Id. at 89
The Individual testified that he does not intend to consume alcohol in the future. Id. at 78. His wife
has stopped consuming alcohol in order to support his sobriety. Id. at 93. His friends and family
know that he is not consuming alcohol anymore, and they are all very supportive of that decision.
Id. at 98.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist revised her diagnosis based on her conclusion that the
Individual did not meet the diagnostic criterion related to cravings, which resulted in the Individual
only meeting sufficient diagnostic criteria fora diagnosis of AUD, Mild rather than AUD,
Moderate. Id. at 137–38. She also explained that she believed the Individual had provided
4 The SMART Recovery facilitator described SMART Recovery as an “alternative recovery program” that is based
on cognitive behavioral therapy and aims to help people recover from addiction and improve their lives. Tr. at 30.
- 5 -
sufficient evidence to show that his AUD was in early remission. Id. at 138. The DOE Psychologist
testified that she believed the Individual’s had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation and
reformation. Id. at 141. Although the Individual had only provided evidence of about five months
of abstinence from alcohol, the DOE Psychologist explained that she would typically only require
about six months of documented abstinence from a person she had diagnosed with AUD, Mild. Id.
She also emphasized that this determination was influenced by the Individual’s continued
participation in SMART Recovery and the SMART Recovery facilitator’s testimony about the
Individual’s involvement with the group. Id. at 142. The DOE Psychologist testified that the
Individual’s prognosis for continued sobriety is good on a poor, good, excellent scale because he
has experienced benefits from his sobriety and continued to participate in his hobbies without
consuming alcohol. Id. at 143–45. The Individual’s prognosis is not excellent because there has
not been enough time since he stopped consuming alcohol to reach that conclusion. Id. at 145.
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.
The Individual has resolved the security concerns pursuant to mitigating conditions (b) and (c). At
the hearing, he acknowledged that his alcohol use was maladaptive and provided compelling
evidence that he had taken actions to overcome his problem by completing his IOP, attending
recommended aftercare, and participating in weekly SMART Recovery meetings. In order to
support his testimony that he had not consumed alcohol since January 10, 2026, he provided five
months of negative PEth tests. He also provided proof that he had completed his IOP and, at the
- 6 -
time of the hearing, was participating in his IOP’s recommended aftercare program. The letter he
provided from his aftercare provider indicated that he was making good progress in the program.
The DOE Psychologist concurred and opined that the Individual’s prognosis was “good.” Finally,
there is no indication that the Individual has a previous history of treatment and relapse.
Accordingly, I find that the Individual has resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO
under Guideline G.
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 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 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