PSH-22-0036 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 17, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored 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. With regard to Guideline G, the LSO stated that   a   DOE-consultant   Psychologist   (DOE Psychologist) diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate,   In   Early Remission, and that since 1988, the Individual has had multiple alcohol related incidents that have caused adverse effects on his life due to his history of habitual or binge alcohol consumption. With regard to Guideline J, the LSO alleged that the Individual has had a pattern of criminal conduct and minor offenses spanning from 1988 to 2020, including a 2020 charge of Driving Under the Influence ( DUI).

At the hearing, the Individual and the DOE Psychologist testified. The credible   testimony   and evidence established that, among other things, the Individual had been abstinent from alcohol since November 2020 and that he had attended three   Alcoholics   Anonymous   (AA)   meetings.   The Individual also testified that he took responsibility for the 2020 DUI and successfully resolved the matter. He did, however, admit that he drove under the influence of alcohol outside of the DUI charges

. Although the Individual had exceeded the six months of abstinence the DOE Psychologist had recommended, he had failed to comply with the remainder of the recommendations, which included submitting to at least three alcohol tests during the course of six months, undergoing counseling that has an individual and group component, or in the alternative, attend AA meetings and work through the program with the assistance of a sponsor. Accordingly,   the   DOE   Psychologist   could   not conclude that the Individual had been reformed or rehabilitated. Considering the Individual's years -long history of maladaptive alcohol use and his failure to thoroughly implement the DOE Psychologist's recommendations, the Individual failed to completely resolve the Guideline G concerns.

Although all but one of the charges enumerated in the Notification Letter occurred prior to 2009, the most recent offense was the DUI in 2020. The more egregious of the charges were alcohol related and considering the charges within the context of the Individual's history of alcohol misuse, his admission that he previously operated his car under the influence of alcohol and his relatively recently established sobriety, not enough time had elapsed since the latest criminal behavior so as not to cast doubt on his reliability, good judgement, or trustworthiness. It also could not be concluded that the behavior took place under unusual circumstances. The Administrative Judge also could not find that the Individual had been successfully rehabilitated without a showing of further treatment and more sweeping lifestyle changes. Accordingly, the Individual has failed to resolve Guideline J concerns.

Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had fully resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines G and J. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0036, Fishman)