PSH-23-0078 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On July 28, 2023, 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 indicating that in June 2022, after consuming approximately five alcoholic beverages, the Individual was arrested and charged with Felony Aggravated Battery Against a Household Member and a petition for an Order of Protection from Domestic Violence Abuse (Order of Protection) was filed against him. The LSO also alleged that the DOE Psychologist determined that the Individual frequently drinks excessively and beyond the level of consumption found to impair judgment. Finally, the LSO stated that the DOE Psychologist also determined that the Individual's lack of candor is a feature of several mental conditions that impairs his judgment, reliability, and trustworthiness.

The Individual and DOE Psychologist testified at the hearing. The evidence in the record indicated that the Individual had not abstained from alcohol, that he had not sought treatment for his consumption, that the criminal and civil matters had been dismissed, and that he had reconciled with the romantic partner that had filed the petition for a protective order against him. The Individual's account of what took place on the day of the incident in June 2022 varied from the account provided in the police incident report and the complaint for the Order of Protection. The DOE Psychologist testified that he had concerns regarding the Individual's lack of candor because the phosphatidylethanol test results varied so greatly from the Individual's self-reports of drinking. As the Individual did not provide evidence that his problematic alcohol consumption had discontinued, that he was receiving treatment, or that he had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that he had mitigated the Guideline G concerns. As the Guideline J concerns were related to his alcohol consumption, the Administrative Judge could not conclude that he had mitigated those concerns, either. Further, as there was no sufficient cause to question the DOE Psychologist's assessment regarding the Individual's lack of candor, the Individual failed to mitigate the Guideline I concern. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0078, Rahimzadeh)