PSH-24-0011 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On February 7, 2024, an Administrative Judge 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 regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption, dishonesty, and criminal conduct. The LSO alleged that the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 1998 and 2023, disorderly conduct in 2017, and underage consumption of alcohol in 1991. The LSO alleged that the Individual had failed to list his 1991 arrest on his 2017 QNSP. The LSO further alleged that a DOE Psychiatrist opined that the Individual habitually and binge drank to intoxication, that the results of the PEth test that was administered indicated recent heavy alcohol consumption, and that the Individual was dishonest when he told the Psychiatrist that he had not consumed alcohol in 5 months.

At the hearing, the Individual admitted that he had relapsed in the summer of 2023 after 5 months of sobriety and that he had been consuming alcohol heavily before his PEth test. He testified that he was attending counseling every other week and AA meetings several times per week. He had been maintaining this treatment for about 5 months by the hearing date and testified that he had been sober for 6 months. The DOE Psychiatrist testified that the Individual had not been abstinent from alcohol long enough to have a low risk of relapse. The Administrative Judge agreed and found that the Individual had not demonstrated a pattern of abstinence sufficient to make relapse unlikely . Accordingly, she found that the Individual had not mitigated the Guideline G concerns. The Administrative Judge further found that until he had mitigated the Guideline G concerns, she could not be certain (1) that the Individual would not continue his pattern of alcohol related criminal offenses, or that the Individual would be truthful about his drinking or criminal activity. For those reasons, the Administrative Judge found that the Individual had not mitigated the concerns under Guidelines G andJ. The Administrative Judge found that because security concerns remained unresolved, the Individual's security clearance should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0011, Martin) (OHA Case No. PSH-24-0011, Martin)