PSH-21-0030 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On June 17, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. The Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption and criminal conduct. Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that (1) the Individual was diagnosed with Substance Use Disorder (SUD), moderate to severe, not in remission, without evidence of adequate rehabilitation or reformation by a DOE Psychologist; (2) the Individual admitted to consuming three to four beers twice a week to daily from March 2015 to June 2017, increasing his use to six or seven beers on the Saturday evenings, and only being able to go a week without alcohol; (3) the Individual continued to drink two to three beers two to seven times a week despite being warned against it by his personal physician; (4) From 1986 to 2008, the Individual was charged with a number of alcohol related offenses. Under Guideline J, the LSO alleged that from 1986 to 2015, the Individual was charged with a number of criminal offenses. The LSO also cited the Bond Amendment, as the Individual was sentenced to one year and served eleven in prison from June 2008 through May 2010.

At the hearing, the Individual and six other witnesses testified. The first four witnesses, the Individual's friends and coworkers, all testified to the Individual's good judgement, trustworthiness, and reliability, and denied seeing the Individual in an intoxicated state, report to work in a hungover state, or having ever heard the Individual discuss his intentions to use alcohol. The Individual testified that he has been abstinent since March 2021, has not engaged in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, has not sought assistance from a counselor or sponsor, and has not sought treatment for the underlying depression with which he had been diagnosed by the DOE Psychologist. The Individual's Psychologist testified that he does not believe the Individual has an alcohol use disorder or habitually or binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgement. He also opined that the Individual does not have a substance use disorder, as there is adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual continues to have a diagnosis of SUD, is in remission, and recommended that the Individual continue to abstain from alcohol, seek treatment for his depression, and work with a counselor for at least six months.

Although the Individual recognized his maladaptive alcohol consumption and has been sober since March 2021, he did not implement the recommendations made by the DOE Psychologist, namely, that he refused to seek treatment for his underlying depression or engage a counselor or go to AA meetings. He also has not completed at least twelve months of sobriety. The Individual also stated that he was not in need of support in his endeavor to remain abstinent. As his maladaptive alcohol use was regular and took place over an extended period of time, the Individual failed to show that his use is unlikely to recur. Considering the Individual's recent endeavor to remain sober along with his refusal to fully implement treatment recommendations, the Administrative Judge was not convinced alcohol related criminal incidents were unlikely to recur. While the Administrative Judge determined that mitigating factor in ¶ 32(d) may be applicable in the present case, he determined that it did not totally mitigate the Guideline J concerns.

With regard to the Bond Amendment, the Individual did not deny the fact that he served a term of imprisonment exceeding one year. The Individual is, as a result, disqualified from holding a DOE Access Authorization under the Bond Amendment. Although the Individual was released from incarceration in 2010, the Administrative Judge found that, due to the egregious number of alcohol related crimes taken with the Individual's fragile sobriety, an exception to disqualification under the Bond Amendment was not appropriate. Accordingly, the Individual could not show that he has full resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines G and J. OHA Case No. PSH-21-0030 (Richard Cronin).