PSH-26-0059

*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 4, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0059
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 8, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX (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 was granted access authorization in connection with his employment by a DOE
contractor. See Exhibit (Ex.) 13 at 109.2 On July 1, 2025, the local security office (LSO) received
a Personnel Security Information Report (PSIR) indicating that the Individual had been arrested
and charged with Domestic Battery in connection with an altercation with his girlfriend
(Girlfriend). Ex. 7. In response to a letter of interrogatory (LOI) from the LSO, the Individual
indicated that he had consumed alcohol prior to the incident. Ex. 8 at 39.
In October 2025, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE-contracted
psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 11 at 55. The DOE Psychologist subsequently issued a
report of the evaluation (Report) in which he opined that the Individual met sufficient criteria for
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 the LSO 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 the LSO.
- 2 -
a diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Mild, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual
of Mental Disorders – Fifth Edition – Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Id. at 59.
The LSO 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 5‒7. 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. at 4.
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, and I conducted an administrative hearing in June 2026. The LSO
submitted thirteen exhibits (Ex. 1–13) and the Individual submitted nine exhibits (Ex. A‒I).3 The
Individual testified on his own behalf and offered the testimony of a coworker, his former team
lead, his uncle (Uncle), a personal friend (Friend), a licensed professional clinical counselor
(Individual’s Counselor), and his Girlfriend. Hearing Transcript, OHA Case No. PSH-26-0059
(Tr.) at 3, 12, 19, 26, 39, 51, 67, 78. The LSO offered the testimony of the DOE Psychologist. Id.
at 4, 100.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 1 at 4.
“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. The SSC cited the Individual’s arrest for Domestic Battery after
consuming alcohol and the DOE Psychologist’s determination that the Individual met sufficient
criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, under the DSM-5-TR. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO’s allegations that
the Individual engaged in alcohol-related incidents away from work and was diagnosed with AUD
by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional justify its invocation of Guideline G.4
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (d).
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
3 The Individual submitted Exhibits A‒H in one PDF and Exhibit I as a separate PDF. This Decision cites to the
Individual’s exhibits by reference to the exhibit label and the pagination of each PDF.
4 The LSO also alleged that the Individual continued to consume alcohol following his arrest for Domestic Battery
despite claiming in response to an LOI that he had stopped doing so following his arrest. Ex. 1 at 4. While this
allegation could potentially have raised a security concern under Guideline E, it does not under Guideline G. See
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(a) (indicating that deliberately providing false information on a form used to make a
national security eligibility determination may present security concerns under Guideline E). Accordingly, I do not
consider this allegation further.
Additionally, the LSO alleged that the Individual tested positive for traces of alcohol consumption on a test performed
as part of the psychological evaluation. Ex. 1 at 4. While this positive alcohol test informed the DOE Psychologist’s
opinion in the Report, it does not present a discrete security concern under Guideline G.
- 3 -
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 of 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 his or her 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
A. Individual’s Arrest and Charge with Domestic Battery
On the night of June 27, 2025, at which time he was twenty-four years old, the Individual attended
a nightclub with his Girlfriend and Friend where he consumed alcohol until he blacked out. Ex. 8
at 38‒39; Ex. 11 at 56; Tr. at 54‒55, 93; see also Ex. 13 at 102 (reflecting the Individual’s
birthdate). In the early morning hours of June 28, 2025, security at the nightclub summoned law
enforcement in connection with “a possible domestic violence incident” involving the Individual.
Ex. 6 at 28. Law enforcement officers who arrived on the scene reviewed security footage showing
the Individual and the Girlfriend “in a heated verbal argument,” the Girlfriend walking away from
the Individual, the Individual intercepting her and pulling her hair to prevent her from walking
away and to “intentionally . . . inflict pain,” and security staff intervening after which the Individual
released the Girlfriend. Id. at 28‒29.
When the law enforcement officers questioned the Girlfriend, she denied that the Individual had
intentionally pulled her hair and represented that he had done so unintentionally “in efforts to grab
her attention because the nightclub was crowded and they were being separated.” Id.; see also Tr.
at 75 (Girlfriend testifying at the hearing that she was truthful to the officers and that the Individual
had never used physical force against her). However, the Individual admitted to the officers that
he intentionally pulled the Girlfriend’s hair “due to the argument.” Ex. 6 at 28‒29; see also Tr. at
93 (testifying at the hearing that he could not remember what he told the officers due to having
- 4 -
blacked out). The officers arrested the Individual and he was charged with Domestic Battery.5 Id.;
Ex. 7 at 35. The charges against the Individual were dismissed, nolle prosequi.6 Ex. 11 at 56.
B. Psychological Evaluation by the DOE Psychologist
The Individual met with the DOE Psychologist for the psychological evaluation on October 24,
2025. Ex. 11 at 55. Therein, the Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist that, since turning
twenty-one years of age in 2021, he had consumed four to five beers over three to four hours on
Friday and Saturday nights and became “buzzed” each time he consumed alcohol. Id. at 56. The
Individual indicated that he had sought to reduce his alcohol consumption since his June 2025
arrest, typically consuming three or four drinks where he had previously consumed four or five,
but that he had consumed as many as six drinks per sitting approximately twice monthly. Id.; see
also id. (DOE Psychologist estimating that consumption of six drinks over three hours would cause
the Individual to become intoxicated).
In addition to interviewing the Individual, the DOE Psychologist administered the Personality
Assessment Inventory (PAI) psychological test to the Individual. Id. at 57‒58, 61‒63. According
to the DOE Psychologist, the psychological testing indicated that the Individual “may not have
answered in a completely forthright manner as he tended to present himself in a consistently
favorable light and as being relatively free of common shortcomings . . . .” Id. at 57. The
psychological testing also suggested that the Individual was resistant to treatment. Id. at 61
(indicating that the Individual’s score on the RXR (Treatment Rejection) scale was “more than
two standard deviations above the mean”); Tr. at 103 (DOE Psychologist testifying to the elevation
on the RXR scale).
Immediately following his clinical interview of the Individual, the DOE Psychologist directed the
Individual to provide a sample for a phosphatidylethanol (PEth)7 test. Id. at 57, 65‒66. The PEth
test was positive at 63 ng/mL. Id. at 67.
Based on the Individual’s description of having consumed greater amounts of alcohol than he
intended, despite his stated goal of reducing his alcohol consumption, the DOE Psychologist found
two diagnostic criteria for AUD applicable. Id. at 58‒59. Accordingly, he determined that the
Individual met sufficient diagnostic criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Mild, under the DSM-5-TR.
Id. at 59; see also id. at 58 (listing the diagnostic criteria for AUD and indicating that the presence
of two criteria is sufficient for a diagnosis of AUD). He recommended that the Individual address
5 This is the only occasion on which the Individual was arrested or charged with any offense, other than a traffic
infraction. Tr. at 99; Ex. 13 at 150‒51 (reflecting that no arrests or charges were identified through the 2024
background investigation of the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization).
6 In concluding that the charges against the Individual were dismissed, I take judicial notice that publicly available
records on a governmental website, accessible using the case number, reflect that fact. See Ex. 7 at 35 (reflecting the
applicable website and case number on a summary generated prior to the dismissal of the charges).
7 PEth is a biomarker for alcohol consumption that can be detected in blood for approximately one month following
moderate or greater episodes of alcohol consumption. See Ex. 11 at 6, 15‒16 (citing William Ulwelling & Kim Smith,
The PEth Blood Test in the Security Environment: What it is; Why it is Important; and Interpretative Guidelines, J.
OF FORENSIC SCI., July 2018 (providing guidance for interpretation of the PEth test)).
- 5 -
his AUD by either: (a) participating in an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for alcohol treatment
and demonstrating twelve months of abstinence from alcohol through monthly PEth testing or (b)
demonstrating eighteen months of abstinence from alcohol through monthly PEth testing. Id. at
59.
C. Individual’s Actions to Address His Alcohol Misuse
From August to September 2025, prior to meeting with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual
participated in and completed an alcohol education class offered by his employer’s employee
assistance program (EAP). Ex. A. As he indicated to the DOE Psychologist, the Individual
continued to consume alcohol while attending the EAP class. Supra p. 4; see also Tr. at 96‒97
(Individual testifying that he intended to reduce his alcohol consumption because of the class but
had not yet “put [his] foot down”). The Individual considered attending additional alcohol-related
classes offered by the EAP but decided not to do so. Tr. at 97.
After receiving the Report in early January 2026, the Individual began abstaining from alcohol. Id.
at 79‒80 (testifying that learning of the AUD diagnosis was “embarrassing and shocking”); Ex. C
at 3 (reflecting a negative PEth test result from a sample collected on January 30, 2026). The
Individual continued abstaining from alcohol through the date of the hearing in June 2026. Tr. at
80‒81; Ex. C at 3 (showing that the Individual underwent monthly PEth testing beginning in
January 2026 and ending in May 2026 and that each test was negative for traces of alcohol
consumption) Tr. at 28, 36 (Uncle, with whom the Individual had previously consumed alcohol
regularly, testifying that he had not observed the Individual consume alcohol since approximately
October 2025); Tr. at 70 (Girlfriend testifying that she last observed the Individual consume
alcohol in December 2025).
In January 2026, the Individual sought admission to an online IOP. Tr. at 80. However, after an
assessment, the IOP determined that the Individual’s AUD was not sufficiently severe to warrant
admission to the IOP and on January 15, 2026, notified him that he was ineligible. Ex. B at 2. The
IOP advised the Individual that “[o]utpatient therapy services were recommended . . . .” Id.
However, the Individual did not pursue any other alcohol-related interventions because he “knew
he didn’t need any more help” to abstain from alcohol.8 Tr. at 82.
The Individual began meeting with the Individual’s Counselor in February 2026, on an
approximately biweekly basis, for treatment of “anxiety symptoms related to losing his clearance
. . . .” Id. at 40, 44; see also id. at 42 (Individual’s Counselor testifying that she provided the
Individual with tools for managing anxiety, sleep disturbances, and “excessive worry related to . .
. losing his clearance”). In an initial assessment with the Individual’s Counselor, the Individual
represented that he consumed two to three alcoholic beverages at social events approximately once
8 The Individual subsequently testified that he had tried to enroll in other IOPs, but that one IOP he contacted only
offered services “seasonally” and that “it was hard to find somewhere in person.” Tr. at 80, 84. The DOE Psychologist
testified that “there are IOPs all over the place” and that he “would guess that there [were] some of those available”
to the Individual. Id. at 104. Considering that the Individual testified that he did not perceive that he needed an IOP to
support his abstinence, the DOE Psychologist’s testimony, and the absence of any documentation to corroborate the
Individual’s claims, I do not credit the Individual’s testimony that he unsuccessfully sought to enroll in other IOPs.
- 6 -
monthly.9 Id. at 48. He denied excessive alcohol consumption or blackouts, other than the one that
occurred in connection with his arrest which the Individual’s Counselor inferred was “an isolated
incident,” and also denied cravings for alcohol or difficulties abstaining from alcohol. Id. at 48‒
49. He did not provide the Individual’s Counselor with the Report. Id. at 40. Based on the
information provided to her by the Individual, the Individual’s Counselor determined that he did
not meet sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD and instead diagnosed him with Adjustment
Disorder under the DSM-5. Id. at 40‒42. Accordingly, she did not provide him with any alcohol-
related treatment. Id. at 41.
At the hearing, the Individual testified that he recognized that he had a problem with alcohol and
took the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis “very seriously.” Tr. at 82. He relied on his willpower and
engaging in a variety of hobbies to help him stay “away from places that are mainly alcohol-related
. . . .” Id. at 85; see also id. at 90 (testifying that his career goals were a powerful motivator to
avoid a relapse); id. at 58 (Individual’s Friend testifying that the Individual made positive lifestyle
changes such as improving his diet and going to the gym). He testified that he intended to abstain
from alcohol and that he did not “have a future [sic] of [] when the next time [he was] going to
drink.” Id. at 86; but see id. at 31‒32 (Uncle testifying that the Individual had told him that he
intended to abstain from alcohol for “maybe like two years”); id. at 70 (Girlfriend, in response to
a question concerning the Individual’s future intentions regarding alcohol, testifying “he doesn’t
say he’s – anything on it, he’s just abstinent right now”).
D. Updated Opinion of the DOE Psychologist
The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had not complied with his recommendations or
demonstrated rehabilitation or reformation from his AUD. Tr. at 103. Although he would not
normally have recommended an IOP for a person with AUD, Mild, which he testified would
normally be an appropriate intervention for Moderate or Severe AUD, he believed that an IOP was
appropriate for the Individual considering that the Individual had not changed his alcohol
consumption in response to the EAP class and in light of the DOE Psychologist’s perception that
the Individual’s alcohol-related arrest was a significant occurrence. Id. at 104‒05.
V. ANALYSIS
Guideline G
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;
9 The Individual confirmed that he had told the Individual’s Counselor that he usually consumed two to three drinks
per sitting but represented that he told her that he occasionally consumed more alcohol. Tr. at 98. Considering the
Individual’s Counselor’s belief that the Individual only consumed alcohol monthly, while the Individual reported a
much higher frequency of alcohol consumption to the DOE Psychologist, I find it more probable that the Individual
underreported the amount of alcohol he consumed per sitting than that the Individual’s Counselor misremembered
what he told her.
- 7 -
(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; or,
(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.
Before addressing the mitigating conditions, I will first address the opinion of the Individual’s
Counselor that the Individual does not have AUD. It is apparent from her testimony that she did
not have the same information available to her to form her opinion as did the DOE Psychologist
because the Individual underrepresented the frequency and volume of his alcohol consumption to
her. Consequently, I cannot say whether she would have diagnosed the Individual with AUD if
she knew the extent of the Individual’s alcohol consumption and that he had consumed more
alcohol than he intended. Therefore, I credit the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of AUD over the
Individual’s Counselor’s opinion.
The Individual’s June 2025 arrest was the only alcohol-related arrest he has experienced in his life.
Moreover, while the Individual obviously committed an unlawful battery on the Girlfriend, the
pulling of her hair was not severely violent. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring consideration of
“the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct” in applying the mitigating conditions).
Furthermore, he was a relatively young man when he committed the offense. See id. (requiring
consideration of “the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct”). These factors
weigh in favor of finding the first mitigating condition applicable. However, I am concerned by
the Girlfriend’s denial that the Individual intentionally pulled her hair due to the argument despite
the Individual himself admitting to having done so when he was arrested and video evidence
corroborating that his conduct was intentional. Considering that the Girlfriend was unwilling to
admit that the Individual committed an alcohol-related offense when the evidence strongly
suggests he did, she is not a reliable witness as to whether he has committed other alcohol-related
violence in the past. Considering the relatively short period of time that has passed since the
Individual’s arrest, the unreliability of the Girlfriend’s testimony, and, as explained below, the
Individual’s unresolved AUD, I cannot find that the passage of time is sufficient to establish that
he will not commit alcohol-related offenses in the future or that his conduct was infrequent or
occurred under unusual circumstances. Therefore, the first mitigating condition is inapplicable.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(a).
The Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use and began abstaining from alcohol
immediately after receiving the Report, albeit for a significantly shorter period than recommended.
- 8 -
However, he has not taken meaningful action to address his alcohol problem such that I can be
confident that he will not return to maladaptive alcohol use. The Individual took no substantive
action to find alternative treatment after being rejected from the IOP, despite the recommendation
of the DOE Psychologist that he receive treatment and the letter from the IOP itself which indicated
that he was referred to another provider for less intensive treatment. Considering that the Individual
has only abstained from alcohol for five months, has not committed to lifelong abstinence, and
admitted to consuming more alcohol than he intended in the months prior to his meeting with the
DOE Psychologist, he is at substantial risk of returning to maladaptive alcohol use should he return
to using alcohol in the future without additional interventions. Accordingly, I find the second
mitigating condition inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(b).
The third and fourth mitigating conditions are inapplicable because the Individual’s Counselor
denied that she provided the Individual with alcohol-related treatment and he did not pursue other
interventions as recommended. Id. at ¶ 23(c)‒(d).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable to the
facts of this case. Accordingly, the Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by
the LSO.
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 relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a comprehensive, common-
sense manner, including weighing all testimony and other evidence presented at the hearing, I find
that the Individual has not brought forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns
asserted by the LSO. 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.
Phillip Harmonick
Administrative Judge
Office of Hearings and Appeals