Summary of Decisions - March 27, 2023 - March 31, 2023

Personnel Security Hearing (PSH)

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline H (Drug Involvement and Substance Misuse); Bond Amendment

On March 28, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. During a routine reinvestigation of his eligibility for access authorization, the Individual disclosed that he had obtained a medical marijuana card and used small quantities of marijuana while holding access authorization. At the hearing, the Individual testified that he had "microdosed" marijuana for two months for a medicinal purpose, promptly discontinued marijuana use when he learned that it was prohibited under Federal law despite his possession of a state-issued medical marijuana card, and had no intention of using marijuana in the future. In light of the Individual's exercise of trustworthiness and good judgment in voluntarily disclosing his marijuana use, the minor security risks posed by his prior marijuana use, and his commitment to abstaining from marijuana in the future, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had resolved the security concerns under Guideline H and was not prohibited from holding access authorization pursuant to the Bond Amendment. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23- 0026, Harmonick)

Access Authorization Not Granted; Guideline E (Personal Conduct); Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption); Guideline I (Psychological Conditions)

On March 30, 2023, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) suspended the Individual's security clearance application process because he had omitted information from his security forms on several occasions; been diagnosed with Alcohol -Induced Depressive Disorder (AIDD); admitted alcohol had negatively impacted his life, including receiving criminal charges; and been hospitalized for suicidal thoughts and excessive alcohol consumption.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined the following. The LSO appropriately invoked Guidelines E, G, and I. The AJ also concluded the following. First, the Individual's justification for his omissions did not outweigh the concern that his conduct was motivated by a desire to avoid disclosing information that he perceived to be negative. Second, the Individual continued consuming alcohol despite the recommendations from his doctor and the DOE consultant -psychologist (" Psychologist") that he abstain, and he was still in the initial stages of pursuing the treatment recommendations. Lastly, the AJ found persuasive the Psychologist's opinion that the Individual's prognosis was not positive given his failure to follow the treatment recommendations. Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the Guideline E, G, and I security concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0009, Thompson III)

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

On March 29, 2023, 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 alcohol consumption and criminal conduct . Regarding the Guideline G charges, the LSO alleged that following a psychological evaluation conducted in July 2022, the DOE Psychologist issued a Report in the next month, in which she diagnosed the Individual with Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, in Early Remission. Further, in June the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving While Intoxicated (DWI), after consuming " four beers and three shots" and that the Individual was arrested and charged with DWI in July 2019 after consuming "six to eight mixed drinks, and one shot of whiskey prior to his arrest." Regarding Guideline J, the LSO alleged that the Individual was arrested and charged with the aforementioned criminal offenses in 2019 and 2022, and further, that in April 2001, the Individual was arrested and charged with "DWI involving Drugs."

The Individual, the DOE Psychologist, and five other witnesses testified at the hearing. The evidence in the record established that the Individual properly self -reported the 2019 and 2022 DWIs, and that he enrolled in an IOP following the 2019 incident. He also remained abstinent for some time after the 2019 DWI but began consuming alcohol again. After the 2022 DWI, the Individual came to understand that his alcohol consumption was maladaptive, began abstaining from alcohol, and became subject to random breath alcohol testing and monthly Phosphatidylethanol (PEth) testing at the behest of his employer, the results of which were negative. Following a July 2022 psychological evaluation with the DOE Psychologist, the Individual enrolled in a ninety -day IOP in late August 2022, and successfully completed the program in November 2022. The Individual also received one-on-one therapy and attended weekly aftercare sessions. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation and that his prognosis was very good.

Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated Guideline G concerns pursuant to the mitigating factor at ¶ 23(b) and (d) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. Because the criminal conduct in which the Individual engaged was a direct result of his maladaptive alcohol consumption and the Individual had resolved the Guideline G concerns, he had also resolved the Guideline J concerns. Based on the foregoing, the Administrative Judge conclude that the Individual had mitigated the Guideline J concerns pursuant to ¶ 32(a). Additionally, as there was no allegation or evidence of illicit substance abuse after the 2001 DWI, the Administrative Judge was convinced that so much time had elapsed since the criminal behavior happened, that it is unlikely to recur and does not cast doubt on the individual's reliability, trustworthiness, or good judgment. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0015, Rahimzadeh)