PSH-22-0041 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On April 1, 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. Regarding Guideline G, the LSO asserted that 1) in May 2021, a DOE Psychologist concluded the Individual habitually or binge consumed alcohol to the point that would impair judgment, and 2) the Individual has a history of habitual or binge consumption of alcohol to the point of impairment, as evidenced by his responses to a Letter of Interrogatory, a 2009 encounter with law enforcement after consuming alcohol, and a   2006 citation for underage drinking.    

Regarding Guideline J, the LSO raised the Individual's two encounters with law enforcement. At the hearing, the testimony and evidence established that, among other things, the Individual was trustworthy and would not violate the national security. Further, his witnesses testified that they had never see the Individual have issues with alcohol. In addition, the Individual testified that he had been abstinent from alcohol for six weeks and that he had not attended any Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings. The Individual failed to comply with any of the recommendations raised by DOE Psychologist, which included six months of abstinence, verified by frequent Phosphatidylethanol ( PEth) testing, participation in AA for six months, and participation in an intensive outpatient treatment program.   Accordingly, the DOE Psychologist confirmed his diagnosis and treatment recommendation, the Individual failed to resolve the Guideline G concerns.

Regarding the Guideline J concerns, both charged raised by the LSO occurred over 12 years prior to the date of the hearing, while the Individual was in college. Given this and the lack of other criminal incidents, the Administrative Judge determined that sufficient time had elapsed since   the   latest criminal behavior so as not to cast doubt on his reliability, good judgement, or trustworthiness . Accordingly, the Individual resolved the Guideline J security concerns.

Accordingly, the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he had fully resolved the security concerns arising under Guidelines G. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0041, Fishman)