Summary of Decisions - June 27, 2022 - July 01, 2022

Personnel Security 

Access authorization not restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On June 28, 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 about the Individual's alcohol consumption (Guideline G) regarding his arrest for Aggravated DWI and his subsequent diagnosis with Alcohol Use Disorder-Moderate.

At the hearing, the Individual presented evidence that he had continued to consume alcohol until about two months after being evaluated by a DOE Contractor Psychiatrist, that he had participated in clinical and support recovery programs, and that he had consumed alcohol in the month prior to the hearing. The DOE Contractor Psychiatrist testified that the Individual was not rehabilitated or reformed. The testimony and evidence established that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline G concerns. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No . PSH-22-0046, Martin)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On June 28, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. A DOE Psychologist (the Psychologist) found that the Individual meet the criteria for Unspecified Personality Disorder ( UPD), Unspecified Depressive Disorder (UDO), and Adjustment Disorder With Mixed Disturbance of Emotions and Conduct (AD) set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) which the Psychologist concluded had impaired the Individual's judgment, reliability, stability, and trustworthiness.

At the Hearing, the Individual did not dispute the Psychologist's conclusion, but rather provided the testimony of five witnesses, including her psychotherapist and herself, to show that she had successfully mitigated the security concerns raised under Guideline I by obtaining effective mental health treatment.

The Psychologist testified that after observing the testimony provided by the other five witnesses, she believed that the Individual no longer had an emotional, mental or personality condition that can impair her judgment, stability, reliability, or trustworthiness. She noted that the Individual's stressors have diminished and that the Individual's psychiatrists concluded that she no longer needed medication.  The Psychologist further testified that, because of her therapy, the Individual has learned to regulate and manage her symptoms and has skills in place to avoid repeating the behaviors that led to her diagnosis. She opined that the Individual's prognosis is "good."

The testimony of the Individual, the LCSW, and the Psychologist convinced the AJ that the Individual had fully mitigated the security concerns raised by the Individual's diagnosis. The AJ found that the Individual had shown that she is currently receiving counseling and treatment for her UPD, UDO, and AD, and that that treatment had been effective. The AJ further noted that two mental health professionals, including the DOE's own expert, the Psychologist, both testified that the Individual's prognosis for these disorders is "good," and that her disorders were not currently affecting her judgment, reliability, or trustworthiness, and are unlikely to do so in the future.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge concluded that the security concerns raised by the Individual's diagnosis were mitigated and that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0066, Fine)

 Access Authorization Restored; Guideline J (Criminal Conduct).

On June 28, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should 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 criminal conduct. Regarding Guideline J, the LSO cited the Individual's two alcohol -related arrests, an Operating While Intoxicated and a Public Intoxication. The Judge found that the Individual had learned from his two arrests, which happened under different circumstances . Although a DOE-consulting psychologist found that the Individual did not have an alcohol use disorder, the Individual still found a therapist. Further, prior to the Public Intoxication arrest, the Individual though he was behaving properly by walking home, while intoxicated rather than consuming more alcohol. The Individual he has taken steps to learn from those mistakes through the 48-hour program required after his Operating While Intoxicated Arrest and consulting a therapist. Accordingly, the Individual was able to demonstrate that he had fully resolved the security concerns arising under Guideline J. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0067, Fishman)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption); Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On June 30, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered derogatory information regarding the Individual's arrest related to a domestic relationship with an ex-girlfriend, which prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychiatrist ("Psychiatrist"). Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G and Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline G and Guideline J by citing to the Individual's arrest and the related circumstances in 2020 and 2021 and the Psychiatrist's opinion that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria, for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) - Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

The AJ also concluded the Individual did not resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. First, as to Guideline G, relatively little time had passed since the Individual stopped consuming alcohol, the evidence demonstrated that the Individual did not acknowledge a pattern of maladaptive alcohol use and the evidence did not demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. For example, the Individual did not complete the treatment recommendations provided by the Psychiatrist and he did not participate in or complete a treatment program. Furthermore, the Psychiatrist did not provide a positive prognosis at the hearing, nor did the Psychiatrist conclude that the Individual had reformed or rehabilitated his AUD. Further still, the AJ did not conclude that the evidence regarding the frequency of his behavior or the circumstances under which it occurred weighed in favor of mitigation.

As to Guideline J, the AJ considered the Individual's factual disputes with the description of his behavior toward his ex-girlfriend and determined that the Individual's conduct still illustrated a pattern of concerning judgment. After each separate incident cited as a basis for concern, he had the opportunity to change his behavior. Instead, his conduct continued even after a night in jail and a workplace investigation in which he was admonished and instructed to change his behavior. Given the conflicting testimony and evidence, and based on the information in the record and the following analysis, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns generated by his conduct. First, the AJ concluded that insufficient time had elapsed to mitigate the concerns and the record did not demonstrate that the circumstances were unusual; instead, it appeared that the conduct arose out of the Individual's usual pattern of interaction with his ex -girlfriend. Second, there was no evidence in the record to conclude that the Individual was pressured or coerced into committing the various alleged acts listed in the SSC. Third, there was reliable evidence to support a finding that the Individual committed the various acts that form the basis of the security concern because the Individual did not deny some of the alleged behavior, and the local authorities saw fit to arrest and criminally charge the Individual based on the evidence they received.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual did not resolve the Guideline G and Guideline J security concerns. OHA Case No. PSH-22-0057 (James P. Thompson III)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On June 30, 2022, an Administrative Jude 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. The LSO alleged that in May 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), that prior to his arrest, he had consumed three alcoholic beverages, and that his breathalyzer results registered at .118. The LSO further alleged that the Individual underwent a psychological evaluation conducted by the DOE Psychologist in October 2021, and the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgement and that he has not shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

At the hearing, the Individual, his supervisor, and the DOE Psychologist testified. The evidence in the record established that after receiving the DOE Psychologist's report in December 2021, from approximately late January 2022 to May 2022, the Individual did not consume alcohol. He resumed alcohol consumption in May 2022. The record also established that in March 2022, the Individual attempted to enroll in a treatment program for his alcohol consumption. After two sessions, the licensed counselor determined that the Individual did not meet criteria for services. The Individual did not seek treatment or counseling elsewhere. However, the Individual did seek out another expert opinion, which was obtained in April 2022. The Individual's Expert did not diagnose the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD). The Individual also testified that he attended one Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meeting and two meetings of a similar faith-based group. The Individual completed a four-hour behavior modification course in February 2022, as well as a four-hour drug and alcohol awareness class the same month. At no point did the Individual indicate that he believed his alcohol consumption was maladaptive. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual did not show adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

At the time of the hearing, scarcely a year had passed since the DWI incident, and accordingly, it was recent enough to cast doubt on the Individual's current reliability, trustworthiness, and judgement. Further, the information in the record casted doubt as to whether the Individual's behavior, namely, consuming alcohol to the point of impaired judgment, was infrequent or occurred under unusual circumstances. Not only did the Individual fail to acknowledge that his alcohol consumption was maladaptive, but he failed to show a clear and established pattern of modified consumption or abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations, which was abstinence for the span of twelve months . Additionally, the Individual was not engaging in counseling and was not participating in a treatment program. The record also failed to show that the Individual underwent and completed a treatment program. Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not mitigated Guideline G concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0061, Rahimzadeh)