PSH-26-0077

*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: March 20, 2026 ) Case No.: PSH-26-0077
)
__________________________________________)
Issued: June 9, 2026
____________________________
Administrative Judge Decision
____________________________
Phillip Harmonick, Administrative Judge:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXXX (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.) A at 3 (resume reflecting the Individual’s professional experience).2
On November 19, 2024, the local security office (LSO) received a report that the Individual had
been arrested and charged with Domestic Assault. Ex. 12 at 10. In January 2025, the LSO issued
the Individual a letter of interrogatory (First LOI) seeking information regarding the circumstances
of his arrest. Ex. 13. In his response to the First LOI, the Individual indicated that he and his wife
(Wife) had “scuffle[d]” during an argument and that he had consumed alcohol prior to the
altercation. Id. at 1. He also disclosed that he had been arrested and charged with Public
Intoxication in 2022. Id. at 2. Another LOI (Second LOI) was issued to the Individual in February
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 submitted in a single PDF. This Decision will cite to the Individual’s exhibits in the
order in which they appear in the PDF.
- 2 -
2025. Ex. 14. In his response to the Second LOI, the Individual admitted that he was intoxicated
during the altercation that led to his arrest. Id. at 4.
In March 2025, the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation with a DOE-contracted
psychologist (DOE Psychologist). Ex. 11 at 3. The DOE Psychologist subsequently issued a report
of the evaluation (Report) in which she opined that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a
diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, in early remission, under the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental Health Disorders – Fifth Edition – Text Revision (DSM-5-TR). Id. at
9. Due to an administrative change in the processing of the Individual’s access authorization, the
LSO responsible for adjudication of the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization was not in
a contractual relationship with the DOE Psychologist. See Ex. 10 at 1. Accordingly, the LSO
requested that a second DOE-contracted psychologist (Reviewing Psychologist) conduct a “file
review” of the Report. See id. Upon completion of that review, the Reviewing Psychologist issued
a written opinion (Opinion) endorsing the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with
AUD, Moderate, and opining that “without completion of treatment and sustained abstinence from
alcohol use [by the Individual], it may be premature to rule out that there is not a co-occurring
mental condition.” Id. at 5.
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. 2
at 1‒2. In a Summary of Security Concerns (SSC) attached to the letter, the LSO explained that
the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and J of the
Adjudicative Guidelines. Id. at 4‒11.
The Individual exercised his right to request an administrative review hearing pursuant to
10 C.F.R. Part 710. Ex. 5. The Director of the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) appointed
me as the Administrative Judge, and I conducted an administrative hearing in May 2026. The LSO
submitted seventeen exhibits (Ex. 1–17) and the Individual submitted sixteen exhibits (Ex. A‒P).
The Individual testified on his own behalf. Tr. at 4, 15. The LSO offered the testimony of the
Reviewing Psychologist. Id. at 4, 88.
II. THE NOTIFICATION LETTER AND THE ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The LSO cited Guideline E (Personal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the first basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2 at 4‒
6. “Conduct involving questionable judgment, 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. The SSC cited the Individual having been prescribed antidepressant medication in the past,
the Individual’s history of alcohol misuse and alcohol-related incidents, and the Reviewing
Psychologist’s statement in the Opinion that the Individual may have a mental condition. Ex. 2 at
4‒6. For the reasons described infra section V.A of this Decision, I find that the LSO’s allegations
do not present a security concern under Guideline E.
The LSO cited Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the second
basis for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2
- 3 -
at 6‒11. “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 having been
arrested and charged with Public Intoxication and Domestic Assault, for an altercation that
occurred while he was intoxicated, and the DOE Psychologist’s opinion, endorsed by the
Reviewing Psychologist, that the Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD,
Moderate, under the DSM-5-TR. Ex. 2 at 6‒11. 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. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 22(a), (d).
The LSO cited Guideline J (Criminal Conduct) of the Adjudicative Guidelines as the final basis
for its substantial doubt regarding the Individual’s eligibility for access authorization. Ex. 2 at 11.
“Criminal activity creates doubt about a person’s judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness. By its
very nature, it calls into question a person’s ability or willingness to comply with laws, rules, and
regulations.” Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 30. The SSC cited the Individual having been arrested
and charged with Public Intoxication and Domestic Assault. Ex. 2 at 11. The LSO’s allegation that
the Individual engaged in criminal conduct justifies its invocation of Guideline J. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 31(b).
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 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
- 4 -
A. Individual’s History of Alcohol Misuse
The Individual began consuming alcohol in 2012, shortly before his twenty-first birthday, and
regularly consumed alcohol thereafter, sometimes in binge episodes. Ex. 11 at 3; Ex. M at 55. The
Individual began residing with his then girlfriend, now Wife, and her father (Father-in-Law) in
2013. Ex. 11 at 3. The Father-in-Law was a “heavy drinker” who encouraged the Individual to
consume alcohol with him, and the frequency Individual’s alcohol consumption increased to nearly
daily, sometimes as many as twelve beers per sitting. Id. at 4; see also Ex. M at 55 (indicating that
“it wasn’t uncommon for him [the Individual]” to drink to intoxication).
Beginning in 2021, a number of events prompted the Individual to attempt to modify his alcohol
consumption. In 2021, the Individual’s Wife became pregnant and urged the Individual to reduce
his alcohol consumption in anticipation of their future child. Ex. 11 at 4. Another source of
encouragement for the Individual to reduce his alcohol consumption was his primary care provider
(PCP). In 2022, the Individual went to the PCP due to blood pressure issues, increased heart rate,
and feelings of nervousness and anxiety. Id. at 7. The PCP prescribed the Individual Sertraline, an
antidepressant, to address the Individual’s mental health symptoms. Id. The PCP also advised the
Individual that alcohol could exacerbate his symptoms and recommended that he reduce his
alcohol consumption. Id. at 4, 7.
From 2021 to 2024, under pressure from his Wife, the Individual made a number of abortive efforts
to reduce his alcohol consumption. Id. at 4, 6‒7. The Individual repeatedly abstained from alcohol
for a period of time, once as long as six months, only to return to consuming alcohol. Id.; Tr. at
35. The Individual repeatedly tried to engage in controlled drinking, only to engage in binge
drinking episodes. Ex. 11 at 4, 6‒7; Ex. M at 55‒56. These episodes became more extreme, until
the Individual was drinking eleven to twelve drinks per day on weekends and blacking out. Ex. M
at 56; Tr. at 27 (testifying that he would often drink three beers and “half a bottle of whiskey”).
The Individual’s excessive alcohol consumption and inability to control his drinking caused
problems in his marriage; the Individual’s Wife attempted to impose limits on the Individual’s
drinking, and the couple would heatedly argue when the Individual consumed alcohol against her
wishes. Ex. 11 at 6‒7; Ex. M at 55‒56. The Individual was prescribed Naltrexone, a medication
used to treat AUD, in September 2024 to help him manage his cravings for alcohol, but he
continued to consume alcohol even while using the medication. Ex. M at 54; Tr. at 71.
Throughout this period, the Individual’s work for the DOE contractor was unaffected. See Ex. D
at 15‒16 (indicating that the Individual received raises and a performance award in 2024); Ex. G
at 27 (Individual’s supervisor indicating that the Individual was “a reliable employee” who
performed his work effectively throughout this period). The Individual’s positive workplace
performance has continued to the present date. See Ex. D at 17‒18 (indicating that the Individual
received raises in 2025 and 2026); Ex. G at 27 (indicating that the Individual received a merit-
based promotion in 2025).
B. Alcohol-Related Arrests
- 5 -
In October 2022, the Individual was arrested and charged with Public Intoxication. Ex. 13 at 2;
Ex. E. On that occasion, the Individual’s vehicle broke down, and he pulled into a gas station. Ex.
13 at 2; Ex. M at 55. The Individual became frustrated because he was unable to repair the vehicle
and decided to consume liquor he had in the vehicle. Ex. M at 55; Tr. at 24. The Individual
eventually fell asleep or passed out in the vehicle, law enforcement was summoned, and the
Individual was arrested after failing a field sobriety test. Ex. M at 55; Ex. E at 22. According to
the Individual, his arrest was “humiliating” and “the jail experience was the worst thing in the
world,” but “it wasn’t enough of a wake-up call” to lead him to stop consuming alcohol. Ex. M at
55. The charges against the Individual were eventually dismissed, the circumstances of which are
not present in the record. See Tr. at 25, 70‒71 (Individual testifying that the charges were dismissed
for reasons of which he was unaware).
On November 17, 2024, the Individual consumed alcohol at a family gathering against his Wife’s
wishes. Id. at 28. On November 18, 2024, after an appointment with the PCP, the Individual
consumed beer in a restaurant to pass time and avoid returning home because he and his Wife had
argued about his alcohol consumption the previous day. Ex. M at 56; Ex. 11 at 5. When the
Individual returned home, his Wife confronted him, they argued regarding the Individual’s alcohol
consumption, and she refused to allow him to enter the house. Ex. 11 at 5; Tr. at 30. The Individual
then entered the basement of the home without his Wife’s knowledge where he consumed whiskey
– approximately eight shots in total – until he had emptied the bottle. Ex. 11 at 5; Tr. at 30.
Eventually, the Individual’s Wife realized that the Individual was in the basement and attempted
to force him to leave against his will. Ex. 11 at 5; Ex. M at 56; Tr. at 31. During the ensuing
struggle, as the Individual attempted to remain in the home and his Wife attempted to force him to
leave, the Individual struck her face.3 Ex. 11 at 5; Ex. M at 56; Ex. O at 76 (indicating that the law
enforcement officers who responded to the scene observed “a small scratch[] and red[ness]” under
the Wife’s right eye); Tr. at 31 (testifying that he experienced a “knee-jerk reaction where [he]
flung [sic] his hand toward her face[ and] smacked her”). The Individual’s Wife summoned law
enforcement, the Individual fled, a warrant was issued for his arrest, and the Individual was
arrested and charged with Domestic Assault. Tr. at 32; Ex. O at 76. The charges were dismissed
later that month, nolle prosequi, after the Individual’s Wife declined to cooperate with the
prosecution. Ex. O at 78‒79.
C. DOE Psychologist’s Evaluation
The Individual met with the DOE Psychologist for the psychological evaluation on March 25,
2025. Ex. 11 at 3. During the clinical interview, the Individual reported that he had abstained from
alcohol since the November 18, 2024, incident and expressed the intention to abstain from alcohol
indefinitely. Id. at 6. Immediately following the evaluation, the Individual provided a sample for
a phosphatidylethanol (PEth)4 test. Id. at 15. The test was negative for traces of alcohol
3 The Individual claimed to the law enforcement officers who arrested him that his Wife hit him in the face. Ex. O at
76. Considering that the arresting officers observed no marks on the Individual’s face, I do not credit this claim. See
id. (indicating that the officers “could find no marks where he was allegedly hit”).
4 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,
- 6 -
consumption, which the DOE Psychologist noted corroborated the Individual’s claim to have
abstained from alcohol. Id. at 6.
During the clinical interview, the Individual told the DOE Psychologist that at some point in 2024
he had stopped taking Sertraline because he “felt normal.” Id. at 7. The Individual’s Wife
subsequently suggested that he resume using an antidepressant because she perceived that he was
consuming alcohol excessively “because he was anxious, depressed, and/or irritable.” Id. at 8. On
November 18, 2024, the same day as the altercation that led to his arrest for Domestic Assault, the
Individual was prescribed Lexapro, an antidepressant, by the PCP. Id. The Individual told the DOE
Psychologist that he had taken the medication as prescribed. Id.
On April 8, 2025, the DOE Psychologist issued the Report. Id. at 10. Therein, she opined that the
Individual met sufficient criteria for a diagnosis of AUD, Moderate, under the DSM-5-TR. Id. at
7, 9. She indicated that the Individual’s AUD was in early remission based on her crediting him
with abstinence from alcohol for four months. Id. She recommended that the Individual
demonstrate rehabilitation by demonstrating twelve months of abstinence from alcohol though
PEth testing and participate in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) or another alcohol abstinence support
program for twelve months, attending at least three weekly meetings in person and working the
steps of the program under the guidance of a sponsor. Id. at 9.
The DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual did not meet sufficient criteria for any other
condition under the DSM-5-TR. Id. at 8, 10. However, she noted that the Individual had “some
tendencies to be obsessive” and opined that this trait “likely contributed to some irritable mood
and anxiety at times, but not to a level warranting a diagnosis.” Id.
D. Reviewing Psychologist’s Opinion
On July 4, 2025, the Reviewing Psychologist issued the Opinion. Ex. 10 at 1. Therein, he concurred
with the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with AUD, Moderate. Id. at 5. However,
he opined that, rather than the Individual proceeding straight to AA as recommended by the DOE
Psychologist, “it might be best [for the Individual] to begin rehabilitation by participation in an
[i]ntensive [o]utpatient [] [t]reatment program (IOP) . . . .” Id. The Reviewing Psychologist further
opined that, considering the Individual’s previous treatment for mood symptoms, and the fact “that
the prevalence of a comorbid mental condition is higher in people with AUD than the general
population,” “ruling out the potential presence of an underlying mental condition may not be
possible until [the Individual] achieves AUD treatment success . . . .” Id. at 4.
E. Individual’s Efforts to Address His AUD
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)).
- 7 -
On the morning of November 18, 2024, the date of the altercation with his Wife that led to his
arrest, the Individual had an appointment with the PCP. Tr. at 29. During the appointment, the
Individual communicated that the Sertraline he had been prescribed was not effective. Id. The PCP
prescribed the Individual Lexapro. Id. The Individual used Lexapro at varying frequencies and
dosages until June 2025 when he discontinued it due to his mood being stable and not feeling that
it was contributing to his wellbeing. Ex. M at 53; Tr. at 37‒38. The Individual testified at the
hearing that he had discontinued the Lexapro without incident and felt “fine now” without
psychiatric medication. Tr. at 37‒38; see also id. at 73 (testifying that his physical and
psychological health improved “pretty quickly” after discontinuing alcohol use).
In November 2024, the Individual completed three twelve-hour educational classes concerning
domestic violence prevention, drug and alcohol awareness, and anger management. Ex. P at 81‒
83. According to the Individual, he enrolled in the courses at the advice of his attorney in
anticipation of legal action related to his arrest but ultimately found the classes informative and
useful. Tr. at 38‒39. In the drug and alcohol awareness class, the Individual learned about the
physical and mental effects of alcohol consumption and recognized the connection between his
alcohol consumption and his anxiety. Id. at 39; see also id. at 29 (indicating that he recognized
anxiety he felt after drinking as a symptom of withdrawal). In the other courses, the Individual
learned to handle disputes with his Wife more respectfully and learned breathing techniques to
manage his emotions. Id. at 40.
Following his evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, several months went by without the
Individual receiving any communications from the LSO related to his alcohol consumption and he
formed the opinion that the matter had been resolved. Tr. at 43‒44; see also id. at 62 (testifying
that he “thought [he] was in the clear”). The Individual was surprised when his access authorization
was suspended and set out to obtain alcohol testing to address the LSO’s concerns. Id. at 44‒45.
The Individual testified that he had not consumed alcohol since November 18, 2024, and intends
to abstain from alcohol indefinitely. Id. at 40, 48. The Individual provided samples for four alcohol
tests to corroborate his abstinence from alcohol; PEth tests on February 27, 2026, March 27, 2026,
and April 21, 2026, and a hair ethyl glucuronide (EtG) test on March 1, 2026. Ex. H; Ex. I; Ex. J;
Ex. K. Each test was negative for traces of alcohol consumption. Ex. H at 34; Ex. I at 37; Ex. J at
40; Ex. K at 44. Considering the record evidence that PEth testing can detect at least moderate
levels of alcohol consumption in the month prior to collection of a sample, I conclude that the
Individual’s PEth testing shows that he abstained from alcohol from late January 2026 to late
March 2026. See supra note 4 (describing the sensitivity and measurement period of a PEth test).
Based on the information provided by the laboratory that conducted the hair EtG test, I accept that
the hair EtG was capable of detecting some level of alcohol consumption from the nine months
prior to the date of the test.5 Ex. K at 43‒46. However, there is no evidence in the record as to
sensitivity of the hair EtG test; i.e., how much alcohol one would need to consume to produce a
5 A report provided by the testing laboratory indicated that each 1.5-inch segment of hair tested amounted to
approximately three months of growth, and the test results show three segments measured. Ex. K at 43‒46.
- 8 -
positive hair EtG test.6 Accordingly, while the hair EtG test provides some corroboration of the
Individual’s claimed abstinence from alcohol, I cannot conclude that the hair EtG test is reliable
evidence of the Individual’s abstinence from alcohol during the period measured.
The Individual identifies as an alcoholic. Tr. at 39, 41. He is motivated to abstain from alcohol by
fear that he will lose his family if he continues to consume alcohol against his Wife’s wishes. Id.
at 49‒50. Although AA was “mentioned” in his alcohol education class and recommended by both
the DOE Psychologist and Reviewing Psychologist, the Individual decided not to attend AA.7 Id.
at 53; see also id. at 68 (implying that not being “particularly religious” was a consideration in his
decision not to attend AA), id. at 78 (testifying that he believed that attending AA after receiving
the SSC would have been perceived as insincere). The Individual also did not participate in an
IOP, as recommended by the Reviewing Psychologist, because he perceived that a less intensive
intervention was “more fitting for [his] current situation.”8 Id. at 76‒77. Instead, the Individual
testified, he relied on his intrinsic motivation and inspirational materials, such as online videos, to
support his abstinence. Id. at 54. The Individual testified that he and his Wife no longer keep
alcohol in their home, that his Father-in-Law no longer consumes alcohol in his presence, and that
he is thus “not around [alcohol] a whole lot.” Id. at 63. He testified that he would use breathing
techniques to manage stress if he felt the urge to drink, and would call his Wife, brother, or a
childhood friend if he experienced an unmanageable craving. Id. at 82‒83; see also Ex. G at 30‒
31 (letter from the friend attesting to the Individual’s good character but not providing any
information related to the Individual’s alcohol abstinence or the friend’s support thereof).
The Individual began meeting with a therapist (Therapist), paid for by his employer’s EAP, in
April 2026 for “preventative maintenance.” Ex. L; Tr. at 46, 65. The Individual’s sessions with the
Therapist have focused on managing stress and anxiety, such as through breathing techniques. Tr.
at 65. As of the hearing date, the Individual had completed four virtual sessions with the Therapist.
Ex. L; Tr. at 66. The Individual has met with the Therapist on an approximately weekly basis, but
indicated that he intended to reduce the frequency of the sessions to approximately monthly due
to his EAP only covering five sessions and needing to pay for any additional sessions himself. Tr.
at 47, 66‒67.
6 The laboratory tests produced by the Individual indicated that the detection level of the hair EtG test was five
picograms (pg) per milligram (mg). Ex. K at 44‒46. However, there is no evidence as to how much alcohol is necessary
to produce a 5 pg/mg or greater result, the effect of consuming alcohol at an earlier or later date within the measurement
period on the potential detection of the alcohol consumption, or other relevant details necessary to understand the
ability of the test to detect alcohol consumption.
7 The Individual testified that he attempted to attend one AA meeting, went to the wrong location, and never sought
to attend AA again. Tr. at 59‒60.
8 The Individual testified that he contacted an inpatient treatment program and that a representative of that program
told him that he seemed to be progressing well in his recovery and to “come speak with us” if he “relapse[d].” Tr. at
77. Considering that inpatient treatment would be significantly more intensive than the IOP the Reviewing
Psychologist recommended, I do not consider the Individual’s contact with an inpatient treatment program to have
been action to comply with the Reviewing Psychologist’s recommendations.
- 9 -
F. Individual’s Psychologist’s Evaluation
On April 7, 2026, the Individual met with a psychologist (Individual’s Psychologist) for a
psychological evaluation in connection with this proceeding. Ex. M at 50. The Individual reported
abstinence from alcohol since November 2024 and provided a history of his alcohol use largely
consistent with that set forth above. See id. at 53‒58. The Individual endorsed prior episodes of
mild depression, characterized by irritability and anhedonia, when under stress but denied
experiencing any negative psychological symptoms as of the date of the evaluation with the
Individual’s Psychologist. Id. at 57.
The Individual’s Psychologist administered two psychological tests to the Individual: the
Personality Assessment Inventory (PAI) and Alcohol Use Disorders Identification Test (AUDIT).
Id. at 58. According to the Individual’s Psychologist, the results of the PAI suggested that the
Individual was “free of interfering psychopathology and personality problems . . . .” Id. The
AUDIT, which screens for problematic alcohol use in the preceding twelve months, produced a
score of zero, consistent with the Individual’s claimed abstinence from alcohol. Id.
On April 27, 2026, the Individual’s Psychologist issued a report of his evaluation. Ex. M at 50.
Therein, he endorsed the DOE Psychologist’s diagnosis of the Individual with AUD, Moderate.
Id. at 59. Based on the Individual’s self-described abstinence from alcohol for seventeen months
and cessation of cravings and other symptoms of AUD, the Individual’s Psychologist opined that
the Individual’s AUD was in full remission. Id. He opined that the Individual’s risk of relapse was
low but recommended that the Individual meet with a therapist “for relapse prevention planning
and to develop coping strategies for high-stress situations.” Id. at 54, 60.
Regarding mental health conditions, the Individual’s Psychologist indicated that his evaluation did
not produce evidence that the Individual met criteria for any condition. Id. at 60. He further noted
that the Individual’s self-reported absence of symptoms of anxiety or depression since
discontinuing antidepressant use in June 2025 supported the conclusion that the Individual’s prior
mental health symptoms were attributable to a combination of “active alcohol misuse, situational
stress, and related health consequences.” Id.
G. Updated Opinion of the Reviewing Psychologist
The Reviewing Psychologist testified that whether the Individual’s AUD was in sustained
remission was contingent on the truthfulness of his account of approximately eighteen months of
abstinence from alcohol as of the date of the hearing. Id. at 94‒95; see also id. at 110 (testifying
that he believed the Individual’s account). He further opined that, while the Individual’s risk of
relapse was not “high,” his risk of relapse would be lower if he had followed the Reviewing
Psychologist’s recommendations for treatment. Id. at 113‒14. He noted that the Individual had
unsuccessfully sought to abstain from alcohol himself, with the support and cajoling of his wife,
without formal treatment in the past. Id. at 94, 99. Considering that history of ineffectively seeking
to maintain abstinence from alcohol, the Reviewing Psychologist indicated that the Individual’s
resistance to treatment “was not in his best interest,” and increased his vulnerability to a relapse
triggered by anxiety and stress. Id. at 93‒94. He opined that the Individual’s sessions with the
Therapist had not established the relapse prevention plan recommended by the Individual’s
- 10 -
Psychologist or “equip[ped] him fully” with skills to maintain his abstinence from alcohol and that
he would not recommend the Individual “abruptly” reducing his sessions with the Therapist from
weekly to monthly. Id. at 98, 115‒18.
Regarding the Individual’s potential for a psychological condition, the Reviewing Psychologist
testified that the Individual had “situational, sub-clinical triggers for stress and mood symptoms”
that he should “pay attention to.” Id. at 107. However, based on the information in the Individual’s
exhibits and testimony, he opined that he “would not likely diagnose [the Individual] with a mental
condition.” Id.
V. ANALYSIS
A. Guideline E
The LSO’s allegations under Guideline E effectively assert that the Individual’s concerning
conduct related to alcohol may have been influenced by a latent psychological condition in
addition to AUD. This allegation is premised on the Reviewing Psychologist’s opinion that “it may
be premature to rule out that there is not a co-occurring mental condition” in addition to the
Individual’s AUD. Ex. 10 at 5. To the extent that the Individual’s conduct was alcohol-related and
alleged under Guideline G, it may not also be alleged as a security concern under Guideline E.
Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 16(c) (indicating that “credible adverse information in several
adjudicative issue areas that is not sufficient for an adverse determination under any other single
guideline” may be raised as a security concern under this paragraph); id. at ¶ 16(d) (indicating that
allegations may be raised under this paragraph only if based on “credible adverse information that
is not explicitly covered under any other guideline”) (emphasis added).9 Thus, for the Individual’s
conduct to raise a concern under Guideline E, I would have to accept that it was sufficiently
probable that the Individual had an unidentified psychological condition and that the unidentified
psychological condition was causing the Individual’s disruptive conduct independently of his
diagnosed AUD to raise security concerns independent of those alleged under Guideline G. The
logical leaps required to adopt this conclusion, which the Reviewing Psychologist merely
characterized as “possible” and was not adopted by either the DOE Psychologist or the Individual’s
Psychologist, are simply too great to present a security concern under Guideline E. Accordingly, I
find that the LSO’s allegations do not present a security concern under Guideline E.
B. 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 remaining concerning conditions under Guideline E, concerning concealing or falsifying information, conduct
that places a person at risk of blackmail or manipulation, violations of written commitments to an employer, and
association with persons engaged in criminal conduct, are obviously inapplicable to the facts of this case. Adjudicative
Guidelines at ¶ 16(a)‒(b), (e)‒(g).
- 11 -
(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.
Id. at ¶ 23.
About eighteen months passed from the Individual’s arrest for Domestic Assault to the date of the
hearing. While this is a considerable period of time, over two years passed between the Individual’s
arrest for Public Intoxication and his arrest for Domestic Assault. Considering that a longer period
of time passed between those two arrests than has passed since the Individual’s arrest for Domestic
Assault, the passage of time alone is plainly no guarantee that the Individual will not be arrested
for alcohol-related offenses in the future. The Individual has been arrested multiple times for
alcohol-related incidents in the past four years and thus it was not an infrequent event for him.
Finally, the Individual’s arrests occurred under relatively ordinary circumstances for him at the
times that the arrests occurred. As to the Individual’s AUD, the condition is a chronic, ongoing
one that, even if it is in remission, is not in the past and does not occur only under certain
circumstances. Thus, the first mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(a).
The Individual has acknowledged his maladaptive alcohol use. However, the Individual has not
demonstrated a full year of abstinence as recommended by the DOE Psychologist and Reviewing
Psychologist. The fact that the Individual tested negative for traces of alcohol consumption during
the March 2025 PEth test following the evaluation by the DOE Psychologist is positive and
suggestive that the Individual may have been abstinent since November 2024 as he claims.
However, the Individual himself testified that he believed himself to have been “in the clear” after
not hearing anything from the LSO following the evaluation for many months. This period, during
which the Individual believed that he had resolved DOE’s concerns and was not subject to further
scrutiny, would have been a time at which he was at heightened risk of relapse. As noted above, I
have insufficient information to conclude that the hair EtG test was as sensitive to alcohol as the
PEth testing recommended by the DOE experts. This raises the concern that the hair EtG test, if it
can only identify heavy levels of drinking, might have failed to detect a relapse on the part of the
Individual that would show that his recovery is more precarious than he claims. Therefore, I do
not accept the hair EtG test as sufficient to establish the Individual’s abstinence from alcohol
during the period measured by the test. This leaves a nearly one-year gap in testing coverage
between the Individual’s March 2025 PEth test and February 2026 PEth test. I have no witness
testimony from persons familiar with the Individual’s alcohol consumption patterns or other
evidence to support the Individual’s self-described abstinence during this period. Considering that
the burden of proof is on the Individual, I cannot credit him for this lengthy period of abstinence
- 12 -
based on his word alone. Thus, I find that the Individual’s demonstrated period of abstinence was
at most three months – the period from January 2026 to March 2026 covered by the Individual’s
PEth testing; well short of the one-year period recommended by the DOE Psychologist and the
Reviewing Psychologist.
Even if the Individual had demonstrated abstinence as recommended, he has not brought forth
sufficient evidence of action to overcome his maladaptive alcohol use. It is not apparent that the
Individual has taken any significant actions to support his recovery from his AUD. In reaching this
conclusion, I am influenced by the facts that the Individual previously abstained from alcohol for
about six months only to relapse into problematic alcohol consumption and that prior treatment
with Naltrexone was ineffective. Considering that the Individual relapsed after a comparable
period of abstinence to that he demonstrated in this case and was unable to overcome cravings
even with medication, I find that there is significant potential for relapse if the Individual attempts
to maintain his abstinence simply through his will power alone. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c) (requiring
consideration of “the circumstances surrounding the conduct” and “the likelihood of continuation
or recurrence”). While the Individual has attended a few sessions with the Therapist, it is not
apparent that the sessions were significantly related to the Individual’s alcohol misuse or that the
Therapist has any training or experience related specifically to treating AUD. Nor has the
Individual brought forward evidence from witnesses as to behavioral changes in his day-to-day
life to support his abstinence. The Individual’s testimony to his intrinsic motivation and limited
therapy is simply not enough for me to conclude that he has “provided evidence of actions taken
to overcome this problem” considering his history. The second mitigating condition is thus
inapplicable. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 23(b).
The third mitigating condition is inapplicable because the Individual is not pursuing the treatment
recommended by either the Reviewing Psychologist or the DOE Psychologist and did not receive
an unqualified positive prognosis from the Reviewing Psychologist. Even if I was to accept that
meeting with the Therapist was an appropriate alternative treatment to that recommended by the
Reviewing Psychologist, which I do not considering the lack of evidence as to the Therapist’s
qualifications and the nature of the treatment, I would still question the Individual’s progress
therein considering his intention to significantly reduce the frequency of his meetings with the
Therapist and the fact that he has not yet developed significant relapse prevention tools. For these
reasons, the third mitigating condition is inapplicable. Id. at ¶ 23(c).
The fourth mitigating condition is not applicable because the Individual does not claim to have
completed a treatment program. Id. at ¶ 23(d).
For the aforementioned reasons, I find that none of the mitigating conditions under Guideline G
are applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the Individual has not resolved the security
concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline G.
C. Guideline J
Conditions that could mitigate security concerns under Guideline J include:
- 13 -
(a) so much time has elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, or it happened
under such unusual circumstances, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt
on the individual’s reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment;
(b) the individual was pressured or coerced into committing the act and those pressures
are no longer present in the person’s life;
(c) no reliable evidence to support that the individual committed the offense; and
(d) there is evidence of successful rehabilitation; including, but not limited to, the
passage of time without recurrence of criminal activity, restitution, compliance with
the terms of parole or probation, job training or higher education, good employment
record, or constructive community involvement.
Id. at ¶ 32.
The first mitigating condition under Guideline J is inapplicable for the same reasons the first
mitigating condition under Guideline G is inapplicable – the passage of time between the
Individual’s Public Intoxication and Domestic Assault arrests was too great to infer that time
alone is a guarantor against future criminal conduct and neither offense occurred under unusual
circumstances. Id. at ¶ 32(a).
The second and third mitigating conditions are irrelevant because the Individual does not claim
to have been pressured or coerced into committing criminal conduct and the accounts of the
arresting officers and the Individual’s own testimony are reliable evidence that he committed
the alleged offenses. Id. at ¶ 32(b)‒(c).
As to the fourth mitigating condition, the charges against the Individual were dismissed and
therefore he had no opportunity to demonstrate restitution or compliance with the terms of
parole or probation. As noted above, the passage of time in this case is not sufficiently lengthy
to mitigate the security concerns in light of the Individual’s history. The Individual has not
brought forward any evidence of job training, higher education, or constructive community
involvement. While the Individual does have a positive employment record, this fact alone is
insufficient to establish rehabilitation in light of the ongoing concerns that the Individual will
relapse and commit future alcohol-related criminal offenses. See 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c)
(requiring consideration of “the likelihood of continuation or recurrence”). The fourth
mitigating condition is therefore inapplicable. Adjudicative Guidelines at ¶ 32(d).
Having concluded that none of the mitigating conditions are applicable, I find that the
Individual has not resolved the security concerns asserted by the LSO under Guideline J.
VI. CONCLUSION
In the above analysis, I found that there was sufficient derogatory information in the possession of
DOE to raise security concerns under Guidelines G and J, but not E, of the Adjudicative
Guidelines. After considering all relevant information, favorable and unfavorable, in a
- 14 -
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