TSO-1107

* 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: September 2, 2011 ) Case No.: TSO-1107
)
____________________________________)
Issued: January 17, 2012
______________________
Hearing Officer Decision
______________________
Steven J. Goering, Hearing Officer:
This Decision concerns the eligibility of XXXXXXXX (hereinafter referred to as “the individual”)
for access authorization under the regulations set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710, entitled “Criteria and
Procedures for Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Matter or Special Nuclear
Material.”1 For the reasons set forth below, I conclude that the DOE should restore the individual’s
access authorization.2
I. BACKGROUND
The individual is a DOE employee and held an access authorization until it was recently suspended.
On May 24, 2010, the individual entered an alcohol treatment program, which he completed on
July 16, 2010. Exhibit B. After the individual disclosed this treatment to the DOE, a Local Security
Office (LSO) summoned the individual for an interview (PSI) with a personnel security specialist on
August 26, 2010. Exhibit 9. After the PSI, the LSO referred the individual to a local psychiatrist
(hereinafter referred to as “the DOE psychiatrist”) for an agency-sponsored evaluation. The DOE
psychiatrist prepared a written report, setting forth the results of that evaluation, and sent it to the
LSO. Exhibit 11. Based on this report and the rest of the individual’s personnel security file, the
1 An access authorization is an administrative determination that an individual is eligible for access to classified
matter or special nuclear material. 10 C.F.R. § 710.5. Such authorization will be referred to in this Decision as access
authorization or a security clearance.
2 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 -
LSO determined that derogatory information existed that cast into doubt the individual’s eligibility
for access authorization. The LSO informed the individual of this determination in a letter that set
forth the DOE’s security concerns and the reasons for those concerns. Exhibit 4. I will hereinafter
refer to this letter as the Notification Letter. The Notification Letter also informed the individual
that he was entitled to a hearing before a hearing officer in order to resolve the substantial doubt
concerning his eligibility for an access authorization.
The individual requested a hearing in this matter. The LSO forwarded this request to OHA, and I
was appointed the hearing officer. The DOE introduced eleven exhibits into the record of this
proceeding. The individual introduced three exhibits, and presented the testimony of four witnesses,
in addition to his own testimony.
II. DEROGATORY INFORMATION AND THE
ASSOCIATED SECURITY CONCERNS
The Notification Letter cited information pertaining to paragraph (j) of the criteria for eligibility for
access to classified matter or special nuclear material set forth at 10 C.F.R. § 710.8. Id. at 3.3 Under
this criterion, the LSO cited (1) the individual’s history of prior alcohol treatment followed by
resumption of alcohol use; (2) an October 1, 2007 workplace blood alcohol test given the individual
which indicated his blood alcohol content was 0.04%; and (3) a December 2010 report of the DOE
psychiatrist, including a diagnosis that the individual suffered from Alcohol Abuse. Id. at 3-4.
This undisputed information adequately justifies the DOE’s invocation of criterion (j), as it raises
significant security concerns related to excessive alcohol consumption, which often leads to the
exercise of questionable judgment or the failure to control impulses, and calls into question the
individual’s future reliability and trustworthiness. See Revised Adjudicative Guidelines for
Determining Eligibility for Access to Classified Information (Adjudicative Guidelines), The White
House (December 19, 2005), Guideline G.
III. REGULATORY STANDARDS
The criteria for determining eligibility for security clearances set forth at 10 C.F.R. Part 710 dictate
that in these proceedings, a hearing officer must undertake a careful review of all of the relevant
facts and circumstances, and make a “common-sense judgment . . . after consideration of all relevant
information.” 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a). I must therefore consider all information, favorable and
unfavorable, that has a bearing on the question of whether restoring the individual’s security
clearance would compromise national security concerns. Specifically, the regulations compel me to
consider the nature, extent, and seriousness of the individual’s conduct; the circumstances
surrounding the conduct; the frequency and recency of the conduct; the age and maturity of the
individual at the time of the conduct; the absence or presence of rehabilitation or reformation and
other pertinent behavioral changes; the likelihood of continuation or recurrence of the conduct; and
any other relevant and material factors. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(c).
3 Criterion (j) defines as derogatory information that an individual has “[b]een, or is, a user of alcohol habitually
to excess, or has been diagnosed by a psychiatrist or a licensed clinical psychologist as alcohol dependent or as suffering
from alcohol abuse.” 10 C.F.R. § 708.8(j).
- 3 -
A DOE administrative proceeding under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 is “for the purpose of affording the
individual an opportunity of supporting his eligibility for access authorization.”
10 C.F.R. § 710.21(b)(6). Once the DOE has made a showing of derogatory information raising
security concerns, the burden is on the individual to produce evidence sufficient 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
regulations further instruct me to resolve any doubts concerning the individual’s eligibility for
access authorization in favor of the national security. 10 C.F.R. § 710.7(a).
IV. ANALYSIS
The individual has not disputed the diagnosis of Alcohol Abuse in the DOE psychiatrist’s December
2010 report. However, the individual testified that he has abstained from consuming alcohol since
June 3, 2010, and he has presented evidence that he completed a treatment program on July 16,
2010, as noted above, and thereafter participated in an aftercare program through January 2011.
Hearing Transcript (Tr.) at 31; Exhibit B. The individual further testified that he has “participated
heavily” in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) and has had a sponsor for 15 months. Tr. at 26. More
specifically, he stated that until March 2011, he attended four or five times per week. Id. at 64. He
acknowledged that he stopped attending AA in March 2011, but began attending again in September
2011, and at the time of the hearing was attending two to three meetings a week and talking to his
sponsor at least three times a week. Id. at 64-65.
The DOE psychiatrist was present for the entire hearing and testified last. He stated that he found no
indication that the individual “was distorting or not being forthright” regarding his history of alcohol
use, and that it “is pretty clear and it's undisputed by him or anyone that he has a fairly serious and
longstanding history of alcohol abuse, which changed, as has been indicated today, as of June 2010.”
Id. at 95-96. He noted that, while the individual had only been sober for six months at the time he
evaluated the individual, “we now have 17 months of absolute sobriety and we usually use a twelve-
month period to say now we have passed a juncture where we have some great confidence.” Id. at
104. According to the psychiatrist, the length of the individual’s period of sobriety gave him a
“chance to develop new coping strategies, if you will, with stressful situations.” Id.
The psychiatrist testified that the individual had “done everything that I expected him to do in the
report,” though he did recommended continued monitoring of the individual through, for example,
monthly visits to an employee assistance counselor. Id. at 103. Regarding the individual’s “support
system,” the psychiatrist noted the “poignant testimony from [the individual’s wife] that she has
regained trust and confidence in him and that they have a loving relationship. And I think that is
really critical.” Id. at 100. He found that the individual also had support at work, citing the
testimony of the individual’s co-workers. Id. at 100-01.
In his questioning of the psychiatrist, the DOE counsel noted that the individual had been counseled
regarding his alcohol use by at least two prior treatment professionals and nonetheless had thereafter
continued to abuse alcohol. Asked why one should not expect the same outcome after the
individual’s most recent treatment, the DOE psychiatrist stated that he did not think the individual
“had the kind of extensive or intensive rehabilitative efforts” in the earlier instances, and “the other
thing, which is perhaps most critical, is that I think he knows he will lose his marriage and his family
if he slips again. And I don't think that is something he is going to risk.” Id. at 106. Thus, the
- 4 -
psychiatrist concluded that the individual’s “prognosis is good” and that his risk of relapse is low.
Id. at 108-09.4
There is no dispute in this case that the individual’s past history of excessive alcohol use provided
legitimate cause for concern from the point of view of the national security. Were that pattern of use
to have continued, the risk caused by the regular compromise of the individual’s judgment and
reliability clearly would have been too high to allow him to hold a security clearance. However, it is
apparent to me that the individual recognizes this, has received appropriate education and treatment,
and has adapted his behavior accordingly. Based upon my review of the entire record, and in
particular the hearing testimony of the DOE psychiatrist, I am convinced that the risk of the
individual using alcohol to excess in the future is now low enough that the security concerns raised
in this case have been resolved.
V. CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, I conclude that the individual has resolved the DOE’s security
concerns under criterion (j). Therefore, the individual has demonstrated that restoring his access
authorization would not endanger the common defense and would be clearly consistent with the
national interest. Accordingly, I find that the DOE should restore the individual’s security clearance.
Review of this decision by an Appeal Panel is available under the procedures set forth at
10 C.F.R. § 710.28.
Steven J. Goering
Hearing Officer
Office of Hearings and Appeals
Date: January 17, 2012
4 The DOE psychiatrist testified that it would be “helpful” to have “documentation and/or even a letter in lieu of
testimony from the people who treated him and, even possibly his AA sponsor, to verify that the kind of reports that we
are hearing today are confirmed by professionals.” Tr. at 99. After the hearing, the individual submitted a letter from his
treatment provider confirming his completion of the treatment program and aftercare. Exhibit B. The individual did not
produce a statement from his AA sponsor. This is not necessarily surprising, given that, as the individual pointed out at
the hearing, for the sponsor to identify himself “kind of contradicts the whole point of AA, . . . .” Tr. at 111. Thus,
though we have, in prior cases, heard testimony from AA sponsors who have been willing to forgo their anonymity, see,
e.g., Personnel Security Hearing, Case No. TSO-0591 (2008), I will not draw a negative inference from the lack of such
testimony in this case.