Summary of Decisions - August 22, 2022 - August 26, 2022

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Denied; Guideline E (Personal Conduct), Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption), and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On August 23, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. 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 derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol use, arrests for driving while intoxicated, and lack of candor regarding his criminal history.

After a hearing, the Judge found the Individual did not sufficiently mitigate the security concerns under Guidelines E, G, or J. Regarding Guideline E, the Judge found the Individual's testimony was not credible due to his repeated inconsistencies regarding the details of his prior arrests. Regarding Guideline G, although the DOE Psychologist determined the Individual demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation, the Judge found the Individual did not submit sufficient documentary evidence abstained from alcohol for six months, particularly in light of inconsistent testimony during the hearing. Regarding Guideline J, the Judge found the Individual's arrests were directly related to his use of alcohol and the Individual did not provide sufficient evidence of rehabilitation from the alcohol-related security concerns to mitigate his criminal conduct security concerns.

Accordingly, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual was not able to demonstrate that he resolved the security concerns under Guidelines E, G, and J, and his access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0051, Martin)

Access Authorization Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption)

On August 24, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be granted. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a DOE security clearance. To support the Guideline G security concerns, the LSO relied upon the fact that the DOE Psychiatrist (Psychiatrist) determined in his December 2021 report that the Individual suffered from Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate, in early remission, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that he binge consumes alcohol to the point of impaired judgment.  The LSO further relied upon the Individual's admissions from his LOI response in which disclosed that after he sought alcohol treatment January 2019, he resumed alcohol consumption approximately one year prior to his LOI response, and last consumed alcohol on October 1, 2021, when he drank to intoxication.

At the hearing, the Individual testified that he has been actively participating in a SMART recovery program on a weekly basis since February 2022, and he submitted his attendance records to support his testimony. He asserted that he had been abstinent from alcohol since his last use on October 1, 2021, and submitted two negative EtG hair tests to corroborate his assertions of abstinence, although alcohol testing was not included among the recommendations made in the Psychiatrist's report. The Individual acknowledged that he has an Alcohol Use Disorder and cannot consume alcohol. He testified to the skills he has developed through his SMART recovery program, his efforts to maintain outside accountability for his sobriety through his recovery group and his church, and how they have aided him in sobriety. He also presented testimony from his SMART recovery facilitator and five additional witnesses, all of whom supported his testimony of his progress in recovery and assertions of abstinence since October 2021. The Psychiatrist opined that the Individual had demonstrated adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation from the Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concern associated with Guideline G. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be granted. (OHA Case No. PSH-22- 0064, Balzon)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption) and Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On August 24, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions in 2021 in which he disclosed that he had been arrested for Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2015 and 2020. The Office of Personnel Management (OPM) conducted a background investigation of the Individual which revealed that he had been arrested for DUI in 2010 and 2012, that he consumed alcohol to intoxication on a monthly basis, and that multiple women had been granted orders of protection against him for alleged domestic violence. During the course of OPM's investigation, the Individual was arrested for DUI and violating the terms of his probation from the 2020 DUI offense. At the hearing, the Individual demonstrated that he had completed an intensive outpatient program (IOP) for alcohol treatment, regularly attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings and individualized counseling, and had undergone alcohol testing to establish his abstinence from alcohol. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline G because of the lack of evidence concerning the extent of his participation in the IOP and AA and the limited scope of the alcohol testing he provided. The Administrative Judge also concluded that security concerns under Guideline J persisted because of the Individual's extensive history of criminal conduct and the relatively short period of time that had elapsed since his most recent DUI. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0092, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Restored; Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On August 25, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be not restored. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires him to hold a security clearance. In December 2020, the Individual self- reported that he had deposited large sums of money into various bank accounts on behalf of a woman he met on a dating site. The Individual explained that, in December 2020, the banks associated with the accounts froze or closed the accounts for "an investigation." Subsequently, the Individual completed a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in March 2021 and was evaluated by a DOE consultant psychiatrist (DOE Psychiatrist) in September 2021. The Psychiatrist diagnosed him with Adjustment Disorder, with Mixed Anxiety and Depressed Mood (Adjustment Disorder). At the hearing, the Individual testified that, after troubles in his marriage, he sought a romantic relationship with a woman he met on an online dating site. Shortly thereafter, the Individual engaged in multiple financial transactions, involving large sums of money, at the woman's direction. The Individual acknowledged that, after two banks froze his accounts due to fraudulent and suspicious financial transactions, he realized his relationship with the woman was problematic and ceased communication. The DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual's Adjustment Disorder was under control, but his prognosis was poor. After considering the evidence in the record and testimony presented at the hearing, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guideline I Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be not restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0086, Quintana)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G

On August 25, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should be restored. The Individual had been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, after the Individual's employer, a DOE Contractor, administered a breath alcohol test to the Individual that indicated his breath alcohol content was .112 G/210L. However, the evidence in the record convinced the AJ that the Individual was fully committed to addressing his AUD and maintaining his sobriety, and had been successful in doing so.  The AJ found that the Individual had fully complied with the Psychologist's treatment recommendations, attended individual and group counseling for ten months and had developed a strong support network which included his family, his fellow attendees of his counseling group, and the staff and fellow attendees of his gym. Especially important, to the AJ, was the evidence in the record indicating that the Individual had been able to abstain from alcohol use for the past ten months, and the Individual's own testimony which the AJ found to be credible and well corroborated.

The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0091, Fine)