TSO-1001

* 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.
July 27, 2011
DECISION AND ORDER
OFFICE OF HEARINGS AND APPEALS
Hearing Officer=s Decision
Name of Case: Personnel Security Hearing
Date of Filing: February 2, 2011
Case Number: TSO-1001
This Decision concerns the continued eligibility of XXXXXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to
as “the individual@) to hold an access authorization under the regulations set forth at
10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled ACriteria and Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access
to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear Material.@ As set forth below, it is my decision,
based on the evidence and testimony presented in this proceeding, that the individual=s
access authorization should be restored.1
I. Background
The individual is employed by a Department of Energy (DOE) contractor and has held a
security clearance at the request of his employer since 2008. In August 2010, the
individual tested positive for alcohol during an employment-related screening. He admitted
consuming 10-12 beers the night before the test. The local security office (LSO)
conducted a personnel security interview (PSI) with the individual in October 2010, wherein
he admitted consuming at least one six-pack of beer nightly for the previous four years.
The PSI did not resolve the security concerns regarding his alcohol use and the individual
agreed to be evaluated by a DOE consultant-psychiatrist. In November 2010, a DOE
consultant-psychiatrist (DOE psychiatrist) interviewed the individual and concluded that the
individual met the criteria for alcohol dependence in early remission without adequate
evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. He also concluded that alcohol dependence is an
illness which causes or may cause a significant defect in his judgment or reliability. The
LSO suspended the individual’s access authorization and then informed the individual how
to proceed to resolve the derogatory information that had created a doubt regarding his
eligibility for access authorization. Notification Letter (December 2010). The Notification
1 Decisions issued by the Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA) are available on the OHA website located at
http://www.oha.doe.gov. The text of a cited decision may be accessed by entering the case number of the
decision in the search engine located at http://www.oha.doe.gov/search.htm.
- 2 -
Letter stated that the derogatory information regarding the individual falls within the purview
of 10 C.F.R. § 710.8 (h) and (j) (Criteria H and J). 2
In a letter to DOE Personnel Security, the individual exercised his right under Part 710 to
request a hearing in this matter. 10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b). The Director of OHA appointed me
as Hearing Officer in this case. After conferring with the individual and the appointed DOE
counsel, 10 C.F.R. § 710.24, I set a hearing date. At the hearing the individual, who was
represented by counsel, testified on his own behalf and also called six witnesses. DOE
counsel called the DOE psychiatrist as a witness. The transcript taken at the hearing shall
be hereinafter cited as ATr.@ Various documents that were submitted by the parties during
this proceeding constitute exhibits to the hearing transcript and shall be cited as AEx.@ DOE
exhibits are numbered, and the individual’s exhibits are lettered.
II. Analysis
The applicable regulations state that A[t]he decision as to access authorization is a
comprehensive, common-sense judgment, made after consideration of all relevant
information, favorable or unfavorable, as to whether the granting of access authorization
would not endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with
the national interest.@ 10 C.F.R. ' 710.7(a). Although it is impossible to predict with
absolute certainty an individual=s future behavior, as the Hearing Officer I am directed to
make a predictive assessment. There is a strong presumption against the granting or
restoring of a security clearance. See Department of Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 531
(1988) (Aclearly consistent with the national interest@ standard for the granting of security
clearances indicates Athat security determinations should err, if they must, on the side of
denials@); Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d 1399, 1403 (9th Cir. 1990), cert. denied, 499 U.S.
905 (1991) (strong presumption against the issuance of a security clearance).
I have thoroughly considered the record of this proceeding, including the submissions of the
parties, the evidence presented and the testimony of the witnesses at the hearing
convened in this matter. In resolving the question of the individual=s eligibility for access
authorization, I have been guided by the applicable factors prescribed in 10 C.F.R.
' 710.7(c): the nature, extent, and seriousness of the conduct; the circumstances
surrounding the conduct, to include knowledgeable participation; the frequency and recency
of the conduct; the age and maturity of the individual at the time of the conduct; the
voluntariness of the participation; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation
and other pertinent behavioral changes; the motivation for the conduct; the potential for
pressure, coercion, exploitation, or duress; the likelihood of continuance or recurrence; and
other relevant and material factors. After due deliberation, I find that the individual=s access
authorization should be restored because I conclude that such a restoration would not
2 Criterion H concerns information in the possession of the agency that the individual has an illness or mental
condition of a nature which, in the opinion of a psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist, causes or may
cause a significant defect in judgment or reliability. 10 C.F.R. 710.8 § (h). Criterion J concerns information in
the possession of the agency that an individual has been or is a user of alcohol habitually to excess, or has
been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or licensed clinical psychologist as suffering from alcohol abuse or
dependence. 10 C.F.R. 710.8 § (j).
- 3 -
endanger the common defense and security and would be clearly consistent with the
national interest. 10 C.F.R. ' 710.27(a). The specific findings that I make in support of this
determination are discussed below.
A. Findings of Fact
The individual first consumed alcohol in his early twenties, and drank one six-pack per
week. PSI at 19. In 1991, at the age of 23, he married his first wife. Ex. 10 at 149. He did
not drink while he was married because his wife had children. PSI at 22. In 1997 and 1998,
the individual drank one twelve-pack per night to fight pain and depression from the marital
problems that had developed. PSI at 22-24. The couple divorced in 1998. Id. In 1999, he
married his second wife and stopped drinking alcohol. The couple had a child in 2000. Ex.
10 at 147. He continued to abstain until 2005. PSI at 22-26. However, he then began to
drink one six-pack of beer per night. PSI at 22-26. In 2006, he was hired by his current
employer, but later that year he and his wife separated. Ex. 10. at 135. He began drinking
one twelve-pack of beer a night to fight depression from his divorce and pain from previous
injuries. Id at 27, 34.
In 2008, DOE granted the individual a security clearance at the request of his employer.
Ex. 3. In 2010, as a condition of his employment, the individual was asked to submit to an
alcohol test. On the evening of August 29, 2010, the individual drove his son to the home
of his ex-wife, and returned home and began drinking beer. On August 30, 2010, the
individual registered .041 on the alcohol test, over the acceptable threshold measurement
of .02. Ex. 8. On August 31, 2010, the individual was referred for mandatory alcohol-
related evaluation at the site occupational health service, which then referred him to a local
eight-week intensive outpatient (IOP) treatment. He started the treatment on September 1,
2010. Ex. 7 at 1.
On October 4, 2010, the LSO conducted a PSI with the individual and the individual agreed
to a psychiatric evaluation. The individual successfully completed his IOP in November
2010, and began to see a counselor that month. He also began to attend Alcoholics
Anonymous (AA). In November 2010, a DOE psychiatric evaluation concluded that the
individual suffered from alcohol dependence, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or
reformation, an illness or mental condition which causes or may cause a significant defect
in his judgment or reliability. Ex. 6.
B. DOE=s Security Concern
Criterion H states that derogatory information includes information that the individual has an
illness or mental condition of a nature which, in the opinion of a psychiatrist or licensed
clinical psychologist, causes, or may cause, a significant defect in judgment or reliability.
10 C.F.R. § 710.8 (h). A DOE psychiatrist concluded that the individual suffers from such
an illness—namely, alcohol dependence. This is a concern because it can impair an
individual’s judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines
for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information, Assistant to the President for
National Security Affairs (December 29, 2005) (Guidelines), Guideline I, ¶ 27. Therefore, I
find that this criterion was properly invoked. Alcohol dependence is also a security concern
- 4 -
under Criterion J because it can lead to the exercise of questionable judgment. See
Guideline G, ¶ 21. Based on the diagnosis of the DOE psychiatrist, I further find that the
individual is suffering from alcohol dependence, and, therefore, the charge under Criterion J
is also valid.
C. Hearing Testimony
1. Character Witnesses
The individual called his colleague, his sponsor, his girlfriend, and a neighbor as character
witnesses. They all described the individual as a reliable hard-working person who was
very serious about his recovery. None of the witnesses had seen the individual drink
alcohol since one week prior to entering the IOP. Tr. at 116. The individual’s colleague
who testified was also a recovering alcoholic who facilitated an aftercare meeting, and had
met the individual there. The individual regularly attended the meeting facilitated by his
colleague. The colleague testified that the individual was very sincere in his comments and
recovery, had a positive attitude, and was very conscientious. Id. at 91-109. The
individual’s sponsor testified that he had known the individual through work for a long time
when the individual asked him to be his sponsor. They talk at work and on the phone, and
he also considers the individual to have a very positive attitude. Id. at 175-180. The
individual has told the sponsor that he intends to abstain for the rest of his life and that he
does not miss drinking alcohol. Id. at 185-191.
The individual’s girlfriend has lived with him for almost four years. Tr. at 110-112. Early in
their relationship, she saw him abuse alcohol but she has not seen him drink alcohol since
August 2010. Id. at 110-113, 116. She added that he does not constantly talk about
alcohol nor has he ever stated that he misses drinking alcohol. She has seen the individual
continue to enjoy life and maintain his abstinence, even when experiencing stress such as
her bout with a serious illness and preparations for the hearing. Id. at 123-125; 153. He is
very open with friends and co-workers about attending AA and he respects his sponsor. Id.
at 133-136. He enjoys attending AA and sometimes attends AA daily. Id.
The neighbor, also a recovering alcoholic, testified that the individual really enjoys his AA
meetings, and seems to be very committed to recovery. According to the neighbor, the
individual is not only active at AA but is also very well-regarded and popular there. Id. at
60-169.
2. The Individual’s Counselor
The counselor, a licensed clinical social worker, testified that she has treated the individual
since November 2010, when he was referred to her upon completion of his IOP. Tr. at 22.
She first met him in 2006 through the Employee Assistance Program (EAP) when he saw
her for problems with his second divorce. Id. at 24. Their focus then was family issues, but
this time he admitted that he was a heavy drinker. Id. at 24. He has very high expectations
of himself, and tests administered at his treatment program corroborated this. He
successfully completed his aftercare and 90 AA meetings in 90 days. The counselor
concluded that the individual is now more open about his problems and that he has learned
how to curb his tendency to be a workaholic so that it does not have a negative impact on
- 5 -
his recovery. He previously felt guilty about taking time off, but now has learned to balance
his work and personal life. The counselor testified that the individual has a “sobriety-
centered value system” and a relapse prevention strategy. In addition, he has a strong
support system with his girlfriend and sponsor as the foundation. Therefore, she concluded
that his prognosis is good, and he is in early full remission from the diagnosis of alcohol
dependence. Id. at 41, 54. Further, he is very likely to obtain full sustained remission
according to the DSM-IV when he achieves 12 months of sobriety. Id. at 49-50.
3. The Individual
The individual testified that he has been abstinent since August 31, 2010, and that as a
result of his treatment program, he now has a commitment to lifelong sobriety. Id. at 209,
230-233. He explained that he did not think he was an alcoholic, but the IOP made him
recognize the problems in his life and the negative impact of his excessive drinking. Id. at
210. He enrolled in the program in September 2010, and found it very stressful, but now
finds the aftercare meetings enjoyable and has even chaired a meeting. He feels much
better phsycially, and his relationships with others are more pleasant and satisfying. He
has learned how to find a balance between work and his personal life that was lacking prior
to his treatment. The program has given him the tools to help him in situations that would
have caused him to drink in the past. After completing the eight-week IOP, he began
attending AA two to three times per week, and continues to do so. He also attends
aftercare meetings run by the treatment program. Id. at 223. He calls his sponsor regularly
and also meets monthly with his counselor. He also works on issues regarding his ex-wife
with his counselor. Id. at 243. He attributes his newfound sobriety to keeping him calm
and preventing him from doing something he may regret in response to a personal crisis.
Id. at 241.
4. The Site Psychologist
The site psychologist met with the individual after he tested positive for alcohol, and noted
that the individual was in denial about the amount of his drinking. Id. He currently sees the
individual for 15- to 30-minute sessions and discusses his attendance at meetings and his
recent activities. His purpose is to monitor the individual’s fitness for duty and facilitate
intervention, if needed. Id. at 71. He has not detected any negative issues in the
individual’s recovery. Id. at 89.
5. The DOE Psychiatrist
The DOE psychiatrist was present during the entire hearing. At the time of his evaluation in
November 2010, he recommended one year of treatment and sobriety, and found that the
individual had a medium risk of relapse. Even at that time he found the individual very
honest, open, and cooperative. Id. at 124. However, as of the date of the hearing, he
concluded that the individual, at eight months of sobriety, has now shown adequate
evidence of rehabilitation and is in early remission. Id. at 260. During his testimony, the
psychiatrist explained that he was persuaded by his perception that the individual truly
appreciates his sobriety. Id. at 256. The psychiatrist never sensed that the individual had
any regrets about not being able to drink alcohol. He described the individual as the “ideal
- 6 -
patient”--very eager to soak up the knowledge and information that the psychiatrist offered.
Id. at 256. The psychiatrist testified that he has completed many evaluations over the
years, and that he had never been quite so moved by an individual’s progress in eight
months—“remarkable progress, a real change.” Id. at 257. He concluded that even
though the individual is a perfectionist, he is not merely trying to do the program faster and
better than everyone else, but he is really changing his behavior. Id. at 257. The
psychiatrist also noted that the individual has been in recovery during significant events
where many people customarily consume alcohol, e.g., a birthday, Christmas holidays, and
yet he has continued to abstain. Id. at 259. He concluded that the individual is in remission
with adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. Id. at 260.
D. Mitigation of Security Concerns
The individual was diagnosed in November 2010 by a DOE psychiatrist as suffering from
alcohol dependence, an illness or mental condition that causes or may cause a significant
defect in his judgment or reliability. At that time, the DOE psychiatrist found no evidence of
rehabilitation or reformation and recommended one year of treatment and abstinence. At
the time of the hearing, the individual had abstained for eight months, less than the 12
months recommended by the DOE psychiatrist. Nonetheless, the DOE psychiatrist and the
individual’s counselor testified at the hearing and concluded that the individual has
presented adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation from his illness. The
professionals were impressed by the individual’s sincere commitment to his recovery. The
counselor stated that the individual was very easy to work with, had a good prognosis and
now understood his illness and how to avoid relapse. Ex. J. After a review of the record, I
conclude, for the following reasons, that the individual has mitigated the security concerns
related to Criteria H and J.
I was persuaded by the witness testimony at the hearing and my observation of the
individual at the hearing. He credibly testified about his ongoing treatment and how the
treatment program had changed his life for the better. His enthusiasm for AA and
commitment to understanding his problem were evident in his testimony. The counselor
gave him high praise throughout the proceeding for his cooperation and comprehension. I
was impressed by the sincerity and support in the testimony of his girlfriend, and I also
found his neighbor, sponsor and colleague, who had experience with alcohol issues
themselves, very credible witnesses. The individual testified that he was committed to
attending AA meetings and lifelong sobriety, and appeared to genuinely enjoy his meetings.
I conclude that the individual has mitigated the security concerns relating to his alcohol
dependence. He has acknowledged his issues and there is credible documentary and
testimonial evidence of his actions to overcome his problems with alcohol. He has
established a pattern of abstinence. Guideline G, ¶ 23(b). He has also completed his IOP,
demonstrated a clear pattern of abstinence in accordance with the recommended
treatment, and has received a favorable prognosis by all the mental health professionals
who testified at the hearing. Guideline G, ¶ 23(d). Therefore, I conclude that he has
mitigated the Criterion J concerns regarding the diagnosis of alcohol dependence. The
Criterion H security concern relating to his judgment or reliability stems from a condition
(alcohol dependence) that is readily controllable with treatment, and the individual has
- 7 -
demonstrated ongoing and consistent compliance with the treatment plan. Guideline I,
¶ 29 (a). He is currently receiving counseling with a favorable prognosis by a duly qualified
mental health professional and the DOE psychiatrist has opined that the individual’s
previous condition is in remission. Guideline I, ¶ 29 (a)-(c). Therefore, I conclude that the
individual has also mitigated the Criterion H concerns regarding his judgment and reliability.
III. Conclusion
As explained in this Decision, I find that the LSO properly invoked 10 C.F.R. § 710.8 (h) and
(j). After carefully reviewing the testimonial and documentary evidence in a common-sense
manner, I find that the individual has presented adequate mitigating factors for the Criteria
H and J concerns. Thus, in view of the criteria and the record before me, I find that
restoring the individual=s access authorization would not endanger the common defense
and security and would be consistent with the national interest. Accordingly, I find that the
individual’s access authorization should be restored at this time. Any party may seek
review of this Decision by an Appeal Panel under the procedures set forth at 10 C.F.R.
§ 710.28.
Valerie Vance Adeyeye
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: July 27, 2011