PSH-22-0113 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On October 5, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not have her access authorization restored 10 C.F.R. Part 710. In 2021, the DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered concerning information regarding the Individual's alcohol use. The information prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE -consultant psychologist ("Psychologist "). After receiving the Psychologist's report from the evaluation, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding her eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline E, Guideline G, and Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the following. The LSO appropriately invoked Guideline E by citing that the Individual made misleading and deceptive statements during the psychological evaluation. Guideline G was properly invoked by citing that the Individual was arrested in 2021 for Driving Under the Influence (DUI), hospitalized in 2004 for alcohol poisoning, and the Psychologist's opinion that the Individual likely had an unresolved alcohol use disorder. Guideline J was properly invoked by citing that the Individual pled guilty to the 2021 DUI, and she had been charged with Underage Consumption of Alcohol [UAC] in 2006.

The AJ also concluded that the Individual did not put forth sufficient evidence to resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. Regarding Guideline E, the AJ found that the conduct was not minor because the Individual intentionally concealed information during a security clearance investigation, the record contained inconsistent evidence regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption on the day of the DUI, and the AJ therefore remained concerned that the Individual would not prioritize candidness or truthfulness in the future. Regarding Guideline G, the AJ found that the Individual had not been treated by a counselor and her participation in alcohol recovery support meetings was not equivalent to the outpatient counseling recommended by the Psychologist; the record did not demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence because the Individual had been an unreliable source of information regarding her alcohol consumption, she failed to follow the Psychologist's recommendation to undertake alcohol testing to corroborate her claimed abstinence, and she only reported abstaining for four of the recommended six months; and the Individual had not completed a treatment program. Regarding Guideline J, the AJ found that the Individual's DUI and charge for UCA were inextricably linked to her consumption of alcohol, and, since she had not resolved the Guideline G concerns, the AJ did not find that the conduct under Guideline J was unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the Individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline E, Guideline G, and Guideline J security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0113, James P. Thompson III)