PSH-26-0058

*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: February 2, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0058
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: April 1, 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 is an employee of a DOE contractor and works in a position that requires him to
hold an access authorization. In May 2025 the Individual’s spouse sought and was awarded an
emergency protection order (EPO) against the Individual. Exhibit (Ex.) 5 at 71.2 The Individual
was, accordingly, asked by the Local Security Office (LSO) to respond to two Letters of
Interrogatory (LOI). Ex. 4; Ex. 5. The Individual completed the first LOI in June 2025, and the
second LOI in July 2025, wherein he responded to questions pertaining to the EPO and his alcohol
consumption. Ex. 4; Ex. 5.
As questions still remained, the LSO asked the Individual to undergo a psychological evaluation
conducted by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in August 2025. Ex. 3. The
Individual submitted to a Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) test and Ethyl glucuronide (EtG) test in
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 Individual’s exhibits were not numbered. Accordingly, this decision will refer to the PDF page number when
citing to exhibits submitted by the Individual. The DOE’s exhibits were numbered at the bottom right corner of each
page, and this Decision will accordingly refer to the page number marked in that location.
2
conjunction with the examination.3 Id. at 12–13. The EtG test was negative and the PEth test was
positive at 109 ng/mL. Id. The DOE Psychologist issued a report (the Report) of her findings in
October 2025, in which she concluded that the Individual “habitually or binge consumes alcohol
to the point of impaired judgment[.]” Id. at 57. She further concluded that his “present/likely” Post-
traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), “[i]f left
untreated or poorly controlled or combined with alcohol use and/or sleep disorder, . . . can impair
reliability and judgment.” Id. at 59.
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), E (Personal
Conduct), 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. See Transcript of Hearing, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0058 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”) The Individual also submitted nine exhibits, marked Exhibits A through I. The DOE
Counsel submitted seven exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 7 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 . . . spouse abuse . . . or other incidents of concern, regardless
of the frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with
alcohol use disorder” and “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 the DOE Psychologist concluded that the
Individual binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, and that the Individual had
not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also alleged
3 “PEth levels in excess of 20 ng/mL are considered evidence of moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Ex. 3 at
13. PEth “can be detected for up to 28 [days].” Ex. 7 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
that in May 2025, the Individual’s spouse filed for an EPO, in which she alleged that the Individual
has a “history of alcohol abuse.” Id. at 6. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is justified.4
Guideline E
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 the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that he “preferred to drink privately so that
his family would not see him drinking,” but noted in his response to the July 2025 LOI that “he
had not had a drink in roughly [four] weeks because he lives alone and does not like drinking
alone.” Ex. 1 at 8. The LSO also alleged that the Individual had told the DOE Psychologist that he
had been abstinent for approximately two months prior to the August 2025 psychological
evaluation, but the PEth test result, which was collected in October 2025, was positive at a value
of 109 ng/mL, suggesting “moderate to heavy ethanol consumption.” Id. As explained in detail in
Section V of this Decision, I find that the LSO’s allegations under Guideline E do not present
security concerns.
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
Psychologist concluded that as the Individual has been treated for a mood disorder, and that PTSD
and ADHD are “present/likely[,]” these conditions and symptoms can impair the Individual’s
judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness “if left untreated or poorly controlled or
combined with alcohol use.” Ex. 1 at 7. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline I is justified.5
4 The LSO made 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 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.
5 The LSO also alleged that the Individual had engaged in violent outbursts towards his spouse. Ex. 1 at 7. Such
outbursts could present concerns under Guideline I, but only if they are “not covered under any other guideline . . . .”
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(a). As the violent outbursts in question appear to have occurred while the Individual
was under the influence of alcohol, and were cited to by the LSO under Guideline G, they cannot also be alleged as
presenting concerns under Guideline I.
4
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
The Individual admitted that, at times, he experienced difficulty controlling his anger, particularly
the day after consuming alcohol. Tr. at 92‒93. The Individual indicated in the June 2025 LOI that
his “anger has boiled over into yelling on a few occasions.” Ex. 5 at 71. He recalled that in March
2025, he was cursing and struck a cabinet. Id. He denied ever striking his wife, but indicated that
in May 2025, his wife informed him that she was leaving and seeking a divorce. Id. She ultimately
filed for an EPO the same month. Id. He also denied stalking his wife, as alleged in the EPO. Id.
at 72. The EPO was ultimately dismissed at the request of the complainant, but alleged “verbal
domestic violence,” “threats to take [the] child,” and that in March 2025, the Individual threatened
to kill her. Id. at 73, 80. She also alleged that the Individual had a history of alcohol abuse. Id. at
80. The Individual started individual therapy in 2025. Id. at 54, 56. With his individual therapist,
they started their therapeutic relationship by treating the root cause of his anger. Id. at 58–60. The
Individual wants to be a good example for his family, and he wants to “move in a better
direction[.]”6 Id. at 64 At the time of the hearing in February 2026, he was attending an anger
The LSO also cited to the Individual having discontinued using psychiatric medication prescribed to him by a doctor.
Ex. 1 at 7. “[F]ailure to follow a prescribed treatment plan related to a psychological/psychiatric condition” may
present a concern under Guideline I, but only if the condition “may impair judgment, stability, reliability, or
trustworthiness . . . .” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 28(d). The LSO did not allege that the condition for which the
Individual was taking the medication could impair his judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness, and therefore
the Individual’s discontinuation of the medication does not present a security concern under Guideline I.
6 The Individual and his wife are talking about the possibility of reconciling and attending couple’s therapy. Tr. at 65.
His wife wants him to remain abstinent from alcohol. Id. at 66.
5
management course run by the behavioral group. Ex. I; Tr. at 53–54. Anger management courses
occur once per week, and the course employs the use of a workbook. Ex. I; Ex. C.
The Individual was diagnosed by his therapist with PTSD in 2025, and it was recommended that
he continue with individual therapy. Tr. at 95; Ex. 4 at 1. The Individual was also prescribed an
antidepressant medication in April 2025, for a condition other than PTSD, which he decided to
stop taking when his prescription ran out in June 2025. Tr. at 77, 75; Ex. 4 at 11, 40, 42. The
provider who initially prescribed the medication was not the doctor that he continued to see for his
primary care. Tr. at 75. He did not have any measures in place to replace any benefit that the
medication offered him, as he was not “thinking that far ahead at the time.” Id. at 97.
The Individual testified that he felt that the LSO’s concerns were justified at the time the
Notification Letter was issued to him. Id. at 31–32. He explained that years ago, he had been
employed in a position that required him to socialize, which would cause him to consume alcohol.
Id. at 13–14. He felt that if he did not consume alcohol while socializing under those
circumstances, he “[would have] stood out[.]” Id. at 14. When he was working in this capacity, he
was consuming about five beers in one sitting, twice per week. Ex. 4 at 40. But when he left this
line of work and such socializing was no longer required, he continued to consume alcohol in
similar amounts. Tr. at 87–88. He explained to the DOE Psychologist that, up to the two months
immediately preceding the psychological evaluation when he began abstaining from alcohol, he
had been consuming five or more drinks on Saturday nights, alone. Ex. 3 at 4.
In June 2025, the Individual engaged the services of a behavioral group. Ex. I; Tr. at 36, 38. As
part of the services offered by that group, he attended a general recovery and relapse course, a
nine-week program that consisted of educational materials and group participation.7 Tr. at 37, 39;
Ex. I. The Individual likely completed the nine-week program in July or August 2025. Tr. at 38–
39. He confirmed that although he did not specifically recall telling the DOE Psychologist that he
had been abstinent for approximately two months prior to the August 2025 psychological
evaluation, he believes that it was more likely that he was abstinent for approximately four weeks
prior to the psychological evaluation.8 Tr. at 35; Ex. 3 at 4; Ex. A at 5, 7.
As part of the psychological evaluation in August 2025, the DOE Psychologist administered the
Adverse Childhood Experiences Questionnaire, the PTSD Checklist, the Alcohol Use Disorder
(AUD) Identification Test, and the Adult ADHD Self-Report Scale, all of which were clinically
significant. Ex. 3 at 7–8. The DOE Psychologist concluded in her Report that the Individual likely
suffers from PTSD and ADHD, and “[i]f left untreated or poorly controlled or combined with
alcohol use and/or sleep disorder, these conditions can impair reliability and judgment.” Ex. 3 at
11. She stated that the Individual’s symptoms appeared to be mild at the time of the evaluation
based on her observations, psychological test results, and the medical records to which she had
access. Id.; Tr. at 105.
7 The Individual also completed a course with the same behavioral group that was described as an “evidence-based,
motivational, risk-reduction program.” Ex. D. There is no indication that this course is specifically geared to alcohol
consumption.
8 In the July 2025 LOI, the Individual indicated that he had been abstinent for approximately four weeks. Ex. 4 at 43.
6
Regarding the Individual’s use of alcohol, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual denied
some core features of AUD, such as “occupational, legal, or medical sequelae,” but admitted that
his wife perceives him to be more irritable when he consumes alcohol. Ex. 3 at 9. Accordingly,
the overall information gathered supported “hazardous alcohol use” without a diagnosis of AUD.
Id. As explained infra, the Individual provided a sample for a PEth test immediately following the
psychological evaluation, but the sample was lost by the laboratory, and he submitted to a second
PEth test in October 2025 at the request of the DOE Psychologist. She noted in her Report that the
PEth test that the Individual submitted to in October 2025 was positive, which was inconsistent
with his reports of abstinence, and she concluded that the Individual binge consumed alcohol to
the point of impaired judgment, as he indicated that he had previously been consuming about “[six]
beers on Saturday nights.” Id. The DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual had not shown
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation and recommended that the Individual remain
abstinent from alcohol for six to twelve months or limit his use to “tightly controlled zero-binge
use, with no episodes of intoxication[,]” as well as “monitoring through random or scheduled
testing . . . with consistent negative results[.]”9 Id. at 10. She recommended continued participation
in a sobriety group, “[i]ndividual therapy with a relapse-prevention/skills component[,]” education
on binge drinking and emotional regulation, and to address any “medical/psychological
contributions to dysregulation that may drive alcohol use[.]” Id.
He began consuming alcohol again in September/October 2025, and he was consuming
approximately three to six beers on Saturday nights. Tr. at 17–18, 24–25. He began drinking again
out of habit, and to help him relax. Id. at 28. Regarding the PEth test that he took in conjunction
with the psychological evaluation, the first blood sample was misplaced by the laboratory. Ex. A
at 1; Tr. at 33–34, 39–40, 107. The Individual submitted to the second PEth test in October 2025.10
Id. at 39. He denied any intention of misleading the DOE Psychologist about his alcohol
consumption during the evaluation and maintained that he had abstained from alcohol in the month
prior to the evaluation. Id. at 35, 80–81. He also explained that he does not feel that he provided
discrepant information when he indicated in the LOI that he does not like drinking alone but told
the DOE Psychologist that he tries to consume alcohol “privately” and away from his family. Id.
at 81. He explained that drinking privately “could be anything not out in public” and that, so long
as someone else was present, he could consume alcohol “privately” without being alone. Id. at 81–
82.
The Individual testified that he began abstaining from alcohol again when he received the
Notification Letter in January 2026. Id. at 12, 22. He indicated that abstaining from alcohol “makes
[his] life better” and that he “feel[s] better” overall. Id. at 13, 27. He admitted that the findings in
the Report provided him some “insight” and played a part in his decision to stop consuming
alcohol. Id. at 15–16. At that point, he had already spoken to the DOE Psychologist, his wife, and
his father about his alcohol consumption, and he took their conversations as something for him to
consider, as his father had been abstinent from alcohol for some years and his wife desired him to
be abstinent from alcohol.11 Id. at 18–19. Since separating from his wife around April/May 2025,
9 At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist stated that after hearing the Individual’s testimony, she would recommend
abstinence. Tr. at 132.
10 He testified that he likely consumed alcohol the Saturday before the second test. Tr. at 91.
11 He found the Report to be particularly concerning, since it was coming from a trained third party. Tr. at 88–89.
7
he felt that he became more aware of his alcohol consumption and how it did or did not serve him.
Id. at 20–21. He admitted that he was using alcohol to self-medicate to some extent after he
separated from his wife around April 2025. Id. at 29; Ex. 4 at 6. He testified that he believes that
he has a problem with alcohol, which is why he stopped drinking, and further, he intends to abstain
from alcohol for the rest of his life. Tr. at 48, 92. The Individual submitted to a PEth test in
February 2026, the result of which was negative. Id. at 46; Ex. E. He does not feel any “temptation”
to consume alcohol, and it has not been difficult for him to stop consuming alcohol. Tr. at 50.
Further, he does not keep alcohol in his home. Id. at 89. His wife, although separated, does check
with him to see how he is faring in terms of his ongoing abstinence. Id. at 51.
In her testimony, the DOE Psychologist testified that she had no suspicion that the Individual was
consuming alcohol at the time of the psychological evaluation. Id. at 109. She testified that she
“was more interested in the fact that [the PEth test] was a positive test and [the Individual] had
indicated that he had been abstinent for a couple of months.” Id. at 110. She felt that at the time of
the evaluation, the Individual was “defensive” about his prior alcohol consumption but explained
that the amount he reported drinking per week prior to abstaining was consistent with binge
consumption. Id. at 111, 126. The Individual did tell her about the treatment that he was receiving,
but she explained that he had difficulty explaining the type of treatment he was receiving, which
she suggested may not have been his fault, but rather, because the provider did not explain it
properly to him. Id. at 112–13. The Individual told her that he was “enjoying the process of the
group” and meeting people while engaging the services of the behavioral group. Id. at 114.
Although not stated in the Report, she expressed that there should have been a follow-up
appointment after he discontinued the antidepressant medication. Id. at 115–16. She also noted
that the individual therapy that the Individual was receiving was not specific to substance use. Id.
at 117. Regarding the ADHD and PTSD diagnoses that she made, she explained that the Individual
is doing favorable things, but in terms of rehabilitation or reformation from maladaptive alcohol
consumption, she would like to see “sustained change over a period of time.” Id. at 118–19. She
noted that he had not undergone alcohol testing for the period of time she had recommended. Id.
at 119.
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;
(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;
8
(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 record before me indicates that the Individual resumed consuming alcohol in
September/October 2025, after one or two months of sobriety. He resumed consuming three to six
beers in one sitting on one weekend night, which is consistent with the problematic alcohol
consumption that he described to the DOE Psychologist. Although he reported that he had been
abstaining from alcohol since January 2026 at the time of the March 2026 hearing, the Individual
had also previously experienced a period of sobriety for approximately the same amount of time.
Accordingly, I am not any more heartened that his sobriety will continue, even though he stated
his intention to remain sober indefinitely. Furthermore, although the DOE Psychologist also
recommended the possibility of tightly controlled consumption without binge episodes, she also
recommended testing. The Individual only submitted one negative PEth test, which only
corroborates one month of his self-reported abstinence.
As the Individual had only recently modified his consumption after binge consuming alcohol on a
regular basis, I cannot conclude that enough time has passed, that the behavior was so infrequent,
or that it occurred under such unusual circumstances that it is unlikely to recur or does not cast
doubt on the Individual’s current reliability, trustworthiness, or judgment. Mitigating factor (a) has
not been met.
Although the Individual has recognized his maladaptive alcohol consumption, as indicated above,
his consumption was only recently modified, and he only submitted to one test to evidence his
ongoing sobriety. I cannot conclude that this constitutes an established pattern of abstinence.
Rather, it is a new pattern. Mitigating factor (b) has not been met.
Although the Individual is receiving therapy, I have no meaningful, corroborating information
pertaining to how the Individual is progressing through therapy, and while I have information that
he completed a recovery and relapse group, I have no information regarding the substance of the
group or whether an aftercare program was available. Additionally, the Individual continued to
consume alcohol after completing the nine-week program. Further, as the Individual’s sobriety has
recently been established, I cannot conclude that he has demonstrated a pattern of abstinence.
Mitigating factors (c) and (d) have not been met.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable and
that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
Guideline E
9
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
reliability, trustworthiness, judgment, or willingness to comply with rules and
regulations.
Id. at ¶ 17.
Under Part 710.7(c), I shall consider, among other things, “the circumstances surrounding the
conduct.” With respect to the Guideline E allegations, the Individual asserted that he had abstained
from consuming alcohol for at least four weeks prior to the psychological evaluation. The PEth
test specimen collected immediately following the psychological evaluation was lost and he was
not directed to submit to a second PEth test until about two months after the psychological
evaluation in October 2025. While it is possible that the Individual resumed consuming alcohol
prior to the psychological evaluation and lied to the DOE Psychologist, I think that unlikely to be
the case considering the Individual’s forthcomingness about his alcohol consumption and relapses.
Further, 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. The PEth
10
test results themselves indicate that they only indicate the presence or absence of alcohol
consumption in the prior twenty-eight days; thus, the PEth test that the Individual took in October
2025 cannot show whether he consumed alcohol in the four weeks prior to the psychological
evaluation. Moreover, as indicated above, as the DOE Psychologist is not a medical doctor, she is
not the appropriate person to interpret these results, and accordingly, I assign her interpretation no
weight. Accordingly, I find that the first cited allegation under Guideline E in the SSC does not
present a security concern.
Similarly, regarding the remainder of the Guideline E allegation, I do not believe that the
Individual intended to mislead. As the Individual explained, to drink alcohol in private or to drink
alcohol alone are two different actions. One can consume alcohol alone in public or with others in
the privacy of a home or other non-public space. Accordingly, I found his response to be
reasonable, and not indicative of an intent to deceive. I do not believe that this allegation constitutes
a Guideline E concern.
Guideline I
The Adjudicative Guidelines indicate that an individual may mitigate Guideline I concerns if:
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.
Id. at ¶ 29(a)‒(e).
The first Guideline I concern is inextricably intertwined with the Guideline G concern, as the DOE
Psychologist noted that although the Individual’s symptoms were mild, her concern related
specifically to the interface between the mental health conditions and the consumption of alcohol.
Specifically, the stated concerns indicate that the Individual’s likely ADHD and PTSD can result
in the exercise of poor judgment if not controlled or combined with alcohol. While the Individual
was properly seeking treatment, and had been since 2025, the Individual was new to sobriety at
the time of the hearing. He had not yet shown a pattern of abstinence. Accordingly, as he had not
11
shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, I cannot conclude that the Individual
has adequately addressed the first Guideline I concern pursuant to mitigating factor (a) or (b).
Regarding the second stated concern, the information before me indicates that the Individual is in
anger management and that he has been receiving therapy since 2025. The therapy sessions focus
on the root causes of his anger. While the Individual is doing well by focusing on treatment, the
record is bereft of any information regarding his prognosis, how he is faring in treatment, and
whether he is complaint with his treatment. I do not have testimony or a letter from a therapist that
speaks to his progress and/or prognosis. Simply attending therapy and anger management is not
enough to mitigate the stated concern pursuant to mitigating factors (a) and (b).
As the DOE Psychologist did not testify that the conditions were temporary, or that there was no
indication of a current problem, the concerns have not been mitigated pursuant to mitigating factors
(d) and (e). Finally, the DOE Psychologist did not testify that the conditions were in remission
with a low probably of recurrence or exacerbation. Mitigating factor (c) is not applicable.
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable and
that the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline I.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO’s allegations under Guideline E did not
present security concerns but 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 not brought forth sufficient evidence to
resolve the Guidelines G and 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