PSH-22-0053 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On June 9, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. A DOE Psychologist found that the Individual meet the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate (AUD) and Post Traumatic Stress Disorder ( PTSD) set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and had not been reformed or rehabilitated.

At the Hearing, the Individual did not dispute that he had been properly diagnosed with both PTSD and AUD, and instead contended, without presenting any hearing testimony from an expert witness or treating mental health professional, that he had sufficiently mitigated the security concerns raised by both diagnoses. However, the AJ found that the Individual had not submitted sufficient evidence to mitigate the security concerns raised by his AUD. The AJ found that the only material evidence submitted by the Individual that he had mitigated the security concerns associated with these two disorders was his own testimony; two laboratory test results indicating that he had not consumed excessive amounts of alcohol for most of the past two -and-a-half months; a one-paragraph letter from his treating psychiatrist indicating that he has been receiving treatment for both disorders and that his prognosis is "good"; and a recent one-page letter from the LCSW outlining the treatment programs for the Individual's PTSD that he had successfully completed and indicating that that his PTSD is " well-managed," but failing to reach a similar conclusion about the Individual's AUD, noting only that the Individual had recently started to attend a substance abuse program and had been "highly engaged" in treatment.

The AJ was convinced that the Individual was rehabilitated from his PTSD by the LCSW and Psychiatrist's letters; the Individual's hearing testimony in which he articulated a great deal of insight and understanding of his PTSD; and the Psychologist's testimony in which she opined that the Individual's prognosis for his PTSD was "good" and that his PTSD was not currently affecting his judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness and was unlikely to do so in the future.  However, the AJ was not convinced that the Individual had been rehabilitated or reformed from his AUD. The AJ found that the Individual's hearing testimony, where he agreed that he has AUD but claimed that he does not have an alcohol problem, did not indicate anywhere near the same level of insight or understanding of his AUD that he had exhibited concerning his PTSD. Moreover, the AJ found, while the Individual had completed several treatment programs for his PTSD, he had only recently begun attending an IOP, and that IOP was significantly less rigorous than what was recommended by the Psychologist.  The AJ also found that the Individual had only shown that he has been drinking in moderation for a period of three months, which was significantly less than sufficient for the AJ to conclude that he had demonstrated a clear and established pattern of modified consumption. Finally, the AJ noted, while the LCSW was able to conclude that the Individual's PTSD was well -managed, he was only able to report that the Individual had begun and was highly engaged in substance abuse treatment.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0053, Fine)