PSH-23-0084 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On August 30, 2023, an Administrative Judge determined that an 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. In April 2022, the Individual reported to the LSO that his security badge and vehicle were stolen following an incident in which he had consumed significant alcohol. Subsequently, the LSO discovered the Individual had a history of seven offenses involving law enforcement,  six of which were alcohol related incidents including two DUI convictions . In December 2022, the Individual was arrested again for DUI but failed to report his arrest to the LSO . The LSO discovered the arrest through the Continuous Evaluation Program. The Individual underwent an evaluation including a clinical interview (CI) with a DOE consultant  psychologist (DOE Psychologist). During the CI, the Individual asserted that he only consumed alcohol on a monthly basis and last consumed alcohol two weeks prior to his CI. However, the Individual's PEth and EtG alcohol testing results were both positive and the DOE Psychologist concluded that they were suggestive of heavy alcohol consumption and binge drinking, and the DOE Psychologist concluded that the Individual consumes alcohol in excess. The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual participate in outpatient alcohol treatment or Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) at least three times weekly and obtain a sponsor and home group, abstain from alcohol, and undergo PEth testing every two months.

At the hearing, the Individual testified that he was still consuming alcohol and had not yet undertaken any of the DOE Psychologist's recommendations. He admitted that he had failed to disclose to the DOE Psychologist that he had consumed significant alcohol three days prior to his evaluation, and he acknowledged during the hearing that he had failed to report his December 2022 DUI arrest. However, his efforts at mitigating his his lack of candor were not supported by evidence and his assertions lacked credibility. As such, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns associated with Guidelines G, E, and J. Accordingly, she concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-23-0084, Balzon)