PSH-26-0064

*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 24, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0064
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: July 1, 2026
___________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
___________________________
Noorassa A. Rahimzadeh, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (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
In early April 2025, a person other than the Individual reported that in late March 2025, the
Individual, a holder of an access authorization, had been arrested and charged with Driving Under
the Influence (DUI) First Offense. Exhibit (Ex.) 7 at 28–30. The report indicates that the Individual
was “driving home after watching a basketball game at a friend’s house” when he “[b]ecame tired
and veered off the roadway.” Id. at 29. The accompanying Affidavit of Complaint indicates that
law enforcement personnel responded to the scene of the single car accident and saw that the
Individual had already exited the vehicle. Id. at 30. A passenger was also in the vehicle but exited
the vehicle with help. Id. When asked by law enforcement personnel how the car accident occurred,
the Individual could not provide “a clear answer[.]” Id. Law enforcement personnel noted the smell
of alcohol emanating from the Individual, as well as bloodshot and glossy eyes. Id. The Individual
was asked to complete field sobriety tests, which he failed, and was accordingly placed under
arrest. Id. The Individual was transported to a medical facility, and once he was cleared for any
injuries, he was taken to a detention center. Id.
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
At the behest of the local security office (LSO), the Individual was asked to complete two Letters
of Interrogatory (LOI), which he submitted in May 2025 and July 2025. Ex. 9; Ex. 10. In the first
LOI, the Individual confirmed that he had fallen asleep behind the wheel of a car, and “crashed
into a ditch[,]” after which the car’s own emergency response system contacted emergency
personnel. Ex. 9 at 37. When law enforcement personnel responded, he voluntarily disclosed the
fact that he had been consuming alcohol. Id. He stated that he had consumed approximately seven
drinks, comprised of both beer and liquor, over the span of seven hours prior to the accident. Id. A
warrant was obtained to secure a blood sample, and the blood sample rendered a result of .16
g/210L.2 Ex. 12 at 71.
As questions remained, the Individual was asked to undergo a psychological evaluation conducted
by a DOE-consultant psychologist (DOE Psychologist) in September 2025. Ex. 12. The DOE
Psychologist issued a report (Report) of her findings in the same month. Id. The Individual
submitted to a Phosohatidylethanol (PEth) test and an Ethyl Glucuronide (EtG) test in conjunction
with the psychological evaluation, which respectively yielded a positive result of 158 ng/mL and
a negative result.3 Id. at 83. In the Report, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with
Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation. Id. at 78.
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 Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) 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-26-0064 (hereinafter
cited as “Tr.”) The Individual also submitted fifteen exhibits, marked Exhibits A through O. The
DOE Counsel submitted fifteen exhibits marked as Exhibits 1 through 15 and presented the
testimony of the DOE Psychologist.
II. Notification Letter
2 The DOE Psychologist stated in the report that she compiled after the psychological evaluation that someone of the
Individual’s height and weight would “would need to consume [twelve, twelve-ounce] beers” of 4.3% ABV over
seven hours to have a blood alcohol content of .16 ng/210L “at least an hour after he stopped drinking.” Ex. 12 at 71.
3 “PEth is not a normal body metabolite” and only “accumulates when ethanol bind to the red blood cell membrane.”
Ex. 12 at 83. A PEth result “reflects the average amount of alcohol consumed over the previous 28-30 days as red
blood cells degrade and enzymatic action removed PEth.” Id. Any PEth test result “greater than 20 ng/mL and up to
200 ng/mL indicates Significant Consumption[,]” which is defined as “averaging” two to four alcoholic drinks per
day for several days a week. Id. An EtG test “detects alcohol in the urine for approximately 72-80 hours” following
consumption. Id. at 72.
3
Under Guideline G, “[e]xcessive alcohol consumption often leads to the exercise of questionable
judgment or the failure to control impulses, and can raise questions about an individual’s reliability
and trustworthiness.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 21. Among those conditions set forth in the
Adjudicative Guidelines that could raise a disqualifying security concern are “[a]lcohol-related
incidents away from work, such as driving while under the influence . . . regardless of the
frequency of the individual’s alcohol use or whether the individual has been diagnosed with
alcohol use disorder” and a “diagnosis by a duly qualified medical or mental health professional .
. . of alcohol use disorder.” Id. at ¶ 22(a), (d). Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that the DOE
Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Moderate, without adequate evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation. Ex. 1 at 5. The LSO also alleged that the Individual was arrested and
charged with DUI First Offense in March 2025. Id. The LSO’s invocation of Guideline G is
justified.
III. Regulatory Standards
A DOE administrative review proceeding under Part 710 requires me, as the Administrative Judge,
to issue a decision that reflects my comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after
consideration of all the relevant evidence, favorable and unfavorable, as to whether the granting
or continuation of a person’s access authorization will not endanger the common defense and
security and is clearly consistent with the national interest. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). The regulatory
standard implies that there is a presumption against granting or restoring a security clearance. See
Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531 (1988) (“clearly consistent with the national
interest” standard for granting security clearances indicates “that security determinations should
err, if they must, on the side of denials”); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990)
(strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
The individual must come forward at the hearing with evidence to convince the DOE that granting
or restoring access authorization “will not endanger the common defense and security and will be
clearly consistent with the national interest.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.27(d). The individual is afforded a
full opportunity to present evidence supporting his eligibility for an access authorization. The Part
710 regulations are drafted so as to permit the introduction of a very broad range of evidence at
personnel security hearings. Even appropriate hearsay evidence may be admitted. Id. § 710.26(h).
Hence, an individual is afforded the utmost latitude in the presentation of evidence to mitigate the
security concerns at issue.
IV. Findings of Fact and Hearing Testimony
Regarding his previous pattern of alcohol consumption at the time of the incident, the Individual
indicated in the first LOI from May 2025 that he would consume “approximately [four to six]
beers/mixed drinks” a few times per month. Ex. 9 at 40. He noted that this pattern of alcohol
consumption began in 2011 and it had not changed. Id. at 41. He stated that he “rarely” consumed
alcohol to the point of intoxication, and that the last time he drank to intoxication was “[s]everal
years ago” when he was “in [his] 20s.” Id. at 42. In the first LOI, he denied having a problem with
alcohol. Id. at 44. He stated in the second LOI from July 2025 that his alcohol consumption reduced
after the March 2025 DUI. Ex. 10 at 53.
4
Upon the recommendation of his criminal defense attorney, in April 2025, the Individual
“underwent a [d]rug and [a]lcohol [a]ssessment” at a treatment center, which indicated that he had
“a low probability of having a substance use disorder,” and the results failed to yield any “clinical
recommendations.” Ex. 9 at 44; Ex. 12 at 68, 71. The Individual was referred at the behest of his
employer, based on the recommendation of an Occupational Medicine psychologist, for a second
substance abuse evaluation conducted by a mental health professional in late April 2025, during
which the Individual “reported a pattern of drinking a [twelve pack] of [twelve-ounce] beers [in]
a [twenty-four hour] time period.” Ex. 12 at 71. The mental health professional who conducted the
second assessment initially “found the subject to have a low probability of indicators that meet
criteria for a substance use disorder diagnosis,” and recommended that the Individual complete
twelve hours of an online substance education course. Id. However, upon the subsequent receipt
of more information sent to him by the Occupational Medicine psychologist, the mental health
professional changed his opinion, finding instead that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a
diagnosis of AUD, Mild, and referred the Individual to treatment. Id. at 71–72. In early May 2025,
the Individual completed a twelve-hour substance education course. Ex. 9 at 44–45; Ex. 10 at 52.
Further, as a requirement to maintain his employment, the Individual began attending an intensive
outpatient treatment program (IOP) in mid-May 2025 and competed the program in July 2025. Ex.
9 at 44; Ex. 10 at 50; Ex. 12 at 73. During the course of his treatment at the IOP, he was diagnosed
with AUD, Mild. Ex. 10 at 50. The IOP consisted of in-person group meetings “four days per week
for three hours each day.” Id. at 50–51; Ex. 12 at 73. The IOP also required participation “in a
relapse prevention group two days per week for one hour.” Ex. 12 at 73. Although the Individual
testified that he was not consuming alcohol during the course of the IOP, he did resume consuming
alcohol following the completion of the IOP in July 2025.4 Ex. 10 at 53; Tr. at 36.
The Individual reported to the DOE Psychologist that his alcohol consumption pattern at the time
of the September 2025 evaluation was to consume alcohol “four times per month but drinking . . .
two to three drinks with a maximum of six drinks.” Ex. 12 at 70. In the Report, the DOE
Psychologist indicated that based on the PEth test results, the Individual was “drinking
significantly more than he was willing to admit.” Id. at 73. Accordingly, the results “call[ed] into
question the validity of his reports regarding his drinking leading up to the DUI” as well as the
amount he reported consuming following the DUI. Id. The DOE Psychologist opined in the Report
that the Individual’s pattern of alcohol consumption following the DUI and “his consistent denial
that he has a problem with alcohol indicates that [the Individual] does not understand the gravity
of his pattern of alcohol use[.]” Id. at 74. The DOE Psychologist was also concerned by the fact
that the Individual did not perceive his pattern of consumption as problematic or excessive. Id. at
75. She observed that the only problematic aspect of his drinking that the Individual was willing
to acknowledge was the fact that he made the decision to drink and drive in March 2025, but she
noted that he did not “convey[] any specific insight or remorse.” Id. In reaching the conclusion
that the Individual suffers from AUD, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual met
the following criteria for AUD under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders,
Fifth Edition – Text Revision: “alcohol [was] often taken in larger amounts or over a longer period
than was intended[,]” the Individual experienced “[c]raving[]s[] or a strong desire or urge to use
4 At the time the Individual completed the second LOI in late July 2025, he stated that when he last consumed alcohol
on an unrecalled date, he consumed “[four] drink[s] over the course of about [five] hours.” Ex. 10 at 53. He testified
that he did not believe that he had a problem with alcohol at the time he completed the IOP in July 2025. Tr. at 39.
5
alcohol[,]” he continued to consume alcohol “despite having persistent or recurrent social or
interpersonal problems caused or exacerbated by the effects of alcohol[,]” and he experienced
“tolerance as defined by a markedly diminished effect with continued use of the same amount of
alcohol.” Id. at 76.
The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual abstain from alcohol for at least twelve
months and that his abstinence should be evidenced by monthly PEth testing. Id. at 78. She also
indicated that breathalyzer tests should be conducted “frequently and at random” by the
Individual’s employer. Id. She recommended that the Individual complete a second IOP, follow
any recommendations made upon his discharge from the IOP, participate in weekly Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA) meetings, provide documentation of his AA attendance, and work the Twelve
Steps with a sponsor. Id. She explained in the Report that an in-person IOP was preferable. Id. If
the Individual did not attend AA meetings, she recommended that he join a similar group and
follow that group’s guidelines. Id.
The Individual began seeing a therapist with a “nonprofit alcohol and drug treatment center” in
November 2025.5 Tr. at 30, 56; Ex. L. As part of his treatment, the Individual received therapeutic
homework, and would work to “examine patterns, triggers, and underlying emotional factors
related to his circumstances.” Ex. L. The Individual also began attending a virtual IOP in
November 2025, which he completed in December 2025.6 Ex. I. The virtual IOP was 20 sessions
over a period of approximately one month. Id.; Tr. at 28. Following his completion of the virtual
IOP, the Individual began attending a virtual weekly aftercare.7 Ex. K. The Individual also attended
and completed twelve hours of an alcohol-related “academy,”8 as well as a victim impact panel in
October 2025. Ex. J.
The Individual began attending in-person AA meetings in late December 2025, and since then to
the date of the hearing in June 2026, the Individual attended approximately forty-seven AA
meetings. Ex. M; Tr. at 53. At the time of the hearing in June 2026, he stated that in the past he
“would try to go [to AA meetings] as often as [he] [could],” but now that he has a new job, he goes
once a week. Tr. at 42. Although he confirmed his belief that AA had been “helpful,” when asked
which of the Twelve Steps he was currently on, the Individual stated that he was “kind of in
between [steps] five and six, but mostly six.”9 Id. at 24–25.
5 The Individual was still seeing his therapist at the time of the June 2026 hearing. Tr. at 30. Their sessions were
initially biweekly. Id. at 44. He began seeing the therapist because his life had become “very chaotic[.]” Id. at 56–57.
6 When asked what he learned about his relationship with alcohol by attending the second IOP, the Individual had
some difficulty articulating a response but ultimately stated that he had learned about his triggers and “some of the
[twelve] steps[.]” Tr. at 43–44.
7 A counselor from the virtual IOP indicated in a February 2026 letter that the Individual “actively participate[s]” in
the aftercare group, and “appears to be serious about his recovery[.]” Ex. K. At the time of the June 2026 hearing, the
Individual was still attending virtual aftercare. Tr. at 29, 58–59.
8 The Individual testified that this academy was “very beneficial for [him], very informative.” Tr. at 18.
9 He stated in later testimony that he has “jumped around” in working through the Twelve Steps. Tr. at 49–53. The
Individual also noted that he has a sponsor but stated that interaction with his sponsor is “hit or miss[,]” as his sponsor
has other obligations. Id. at 25, 45–47.
6
The Individual submitted six negative PEth tests from November 2025 to May 2026. Ex. B; Ex.
C; Ex. D; Ex. E; Ex. F; Ex. G. He also submitted six negative urine tests from late May 2025 to
late June 2025, as well as one negative urine test from November 2025. Ex. A; Ex. H.
During the hearing, the Individual testified that he sought out the second IOP in November 2025
because he “obviously came to the conclusion . . . that [he] had an issue with alcohol.” Tr. at 39.
The Individual chose the second IOP program because it was virtual and he was unable to attend
in person while searching for a job. Id. at 65. The Individual acknowledged that he continued to
drink after his first IOP and he expressed his feeling that the first IOP “was not effective for [him],”
as he was attending because “[that was] just kind of part of the process.” Id. at 27, 78. Accordingly,
while he felt that he was exposed to and absorbed appropriate information, he did not think that
the first IOP “was effective.” Id. at 27. When asked why he did not stop drinking immediately after
the March 2025 DUI, the Individual stated that he did not think he had a problem with alcohol and
that he could drink responsibly if he did not drive. Id. at 23, 67. He explained that while the first
IOP program was educational, the second IOP “forced [him] to examine his relationship with
alcohol.” Id. at 27. The Individual last consumed alcohol at the beginning of September 2025, and
when asked why he stopped consuming alcohol in September 2025,10 he stated that he knew that
“this process [regarding his eligibility for a security clearance] was ongoing and that [he] probably
[should not] be drinking during it.”11 Id. at 15, 19, 36, 62–63. He testified that he no longer keeps
alcohol in his home and that “right now [he] [does not] feel like alcohol has any place in [his] life,”
and he does not have any plans to resume drinking in the future. Id. at 22–23, 55, 73. He ultimately
decided that his “relationship with alcohol . . . [was] unhealthy[,]” and he denied feeling any
temptation to consume alcohol. Id. at 23. He did, however, state that he found certain social
atmospheres triggering at first. Id. at 48–49. He still attends the social events during which he
would previously consume alcohol, but he is not “shy” about refusing a drink when it is offered to
him. Id. at 23–24. Among his support, he counted his mother, his sponsor, his girlfriend, and a
close friend. Id. at 44–45.
At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist confirmed her opinion that the Individual had not shown
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. Id. at 86. Specifically, she noted that he was
lacking the period of abstinence from alcohol that she recommended, which was twelve months.
Id. at 84; Ex. 12 at 78. In determining the recommended length of time, the DOE Psychologist
considered the fact that the Individual had been in IOP before, had been recommended to abstain
from alcohol because of the DUI, and had received education and treatment, but was still choosing
to drink up to shortly before his evaluation in September 2025. Id. She highlighted that the
Individual had followed the recommendations that she made and even started pursuing the
recommendations prior to reading her Report. Id. at 83. The DOE Psychologist testified that the
Individual’s “prognosis is . . . good given what [he is] . . . doing right now. Id. at 88. The DOE
Psychologist stated that there are factors that have a positive impact on the Individual’s prognosis,
10 The Individual could not remember how much alcohol he had consumed on the last occasion he consumed alcohol.
Tr. at 63.
11 In later testimony, he indicated that his main motivation for abstaining from alcohol was his desire to “break[] . . .
the relationship that [he had] with alcohol.” Tr. at 76–77. His devotion to his family was also a motivating factor. Id.
at 77. Finally, he acknowledged that alcohol had changed his “professional standing[.]” Id.
7
such as that he is engaged in AA, that he has a girlfriend who’s not drinking and is supporting him,
and that he has been more open with his family and friends. Id. at 89.
However, the DOE Psychologist expressed concern that the Individual had previously reported a
pattern of binge drinking for several years prior to the DUI, and that he has a history of minimizing
his problem with alcohol. Id. at 86–87. Additionally, she expressed concern that the Individual had
been in AA since December “and has a sponsor . . . but it doesn’t really sound like the sponsor has
been very instrumental in his recovery” and she “wish[es] he could have taken an action and maybe
found a new sponsor . . . to have a better understanding[.]” Id. at 90. The DOE Psychologist is not
“as confident as [she] would like to be” that the Individual will stay on track. Id. at 88.
V. Analysis
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;
(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.
Pursuant to 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c), I am required to consider, among other things, “the absence or
presence of rehabilitation or reformation and other pertinent behavioral changes,” and “the
likelihood of continuation or recurrence.” The record before me indicates that the Individual
attended multiple IOPs, that he is currently receiving individual therapy on a monthly basis, that
he is attending aftercare, and that he submitted six negative PEth tests to evidence his ongoing
sobriety those six months. However, in spite of these positive actions that weigh in the Individual’s
favor, I have several areas of concern. One is the fact that the Individual continued to consume
alcohol after completing the first, in-person IOP. He stated that he was abstinent throughout the
time he was attending the first IOP, but he could not articulate why he resumed consuming alcohol
following the completion of the IOP. In fact, the Individual could not articulate or attribute any
real importance to the first IOP and how it played a part in his alcohol treatment, only to simply
8
state that he found the process to be informational. The Individual’s return to alcohol consumption
following a DUI arrest in March 2025 is problematic in itself, and the fact that he returned to
consumption following completion of an IOP only works to compound my concern he will return
to consuming alcohol at some point, despite his assertions that he no longer intends to do anything
of the sort. His decision to consume alcohol following the March 2025 incident and the completion
of the first IOP evidences deeply poor judgment. It is clear that the Individual did not grasp the
severity of the situation in which he found himself following the March 2025 incident, and I am
concerned by the fact that he could not tell me when he realized that the situation in which he
found himself was grave enough to seek treatment a second time. He initially pointed to the fact
that he realized that this administrative process was ongoing and that he should accordingly stop
consuming alcohol, leading me to believe that he initially made the decision to stop consuming
alcohol strictly for the purpose of maintaining his clearance. I also found his testimony regarding
AA attendance to be somewhat concerning. He stated that he was working on the Twelve Steps
but had some notable difficulty articulating which of the Twelve Steps he had completed and could
only offer that he was between steps five and six and that he was inconsistently working through
the steps in no particular order. While there may not be any harm in working the Twelve Steps out
of order, the Individual’s lack of precise testimony strongly suggests to me that he is not taking
them as seriously as he should. He also seems to have inconsistent contact with his sponsor, so it
remains unclear how he is working through any of the steps and whether he is doing so in a
meaningful manner. Although the Individual did produce six negative PEth tests, corroborating
his abstinence for a period of six months, he could not produce enough negative PEth tests to
evidence ongoing abstinence for the span of twelve months as recommended. Finally, the DOE
Psychologist did not change her initial opinion and confirmed at the hearing that she did not find
adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.
As the DUI occurred in March 2025 and the Individual continued to consume alcohol regularly
after completing the first IOP up until September 2025, I cannot conclude that enough time has
passed, that his behavior was infrequent, or that it happened under unusual circumstances.
Mitigating factor (a) has not been satisfied.
Based on the Individual’s testimony, he acknowledged that his alcohol consumption was
maladaptive at some point prior to or during the second IOP. However, I cannot conclude that the
Individual provided sufficient evidence of the actions taken to overcome the problem. The record
indicates that the Individual failed to complete the AA recommendations as articulated by the DOE
Psychologist, as he has not provided sufficient evidence that he is working the Twelve Steps. He
also has not demonstrated a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with
treatment recommendations, as the DOE Psychologist recommended abstinence for twelve
months. The Individual has failed to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (b).
Although the Individual has participated in regular therapy and treatment programs, he has a
previous history of treatment and relapse, as he began consuming alcohol following the completion
of the first IOP. Further, while I have a letter from the Individual’s therapist generally stating the
focus of their treatment and a broad overview of the Individual’s participation, I do not have any
meaningful information regarding his progress in treatment. Therefore, the Individual has failed
to mitigate the stated concerns pursuant to mitigating factor (c).
9
While the Individual has submitted evidence of counseling and treatment, he submitted only six
negative PEth tests, which fails to demonstrate that he has been abstinent for the full period of
twelve months, as was recommended by the DOE Psychologist. Therefore, mitigating factor (d)
has not been satisfied.
VI. Conclusion
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the LSO properly invoked Guideline G 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 security concerns alleged by the LSO under the Guideline G 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