PSH-17-0062 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On January 24, 2018, 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 DOE security clearance. In March 2017, as part of a background investigation, the Local Security Office (LSO) conducted a Personnel Security Interview (PSI) of the individual to address concerns about his alcohol-related incidents, his alcohol use and his lack of candor. To support Guideline G, the LSO cited the DOE psychologist’s diagnosis of Alcohol Use Disorder, the individual’s alcohol use and the individual’s four alcohol-related incidents. As for Guideline I, the LSO cited the report of the DOE psychologist which concluded that the individual suffers from interpersonal dysfunctions, avoidance of personal responsibility for patterns of problems, and lack of candor.  During the hearing, the individual testified that he has not consumed alcohol for four months, and believes that he has gained clarity and a better feeling of health since abstaining from alcohol.  The DOE psychologist testified that her professional opinion concerning the individual is unchanged,  noting his lengthy history of alcohol use and the absence of a formal treatment program specifically addressing his alcohol use disorder.  She further noted that the individual has not yet learned strategies or relapse prevention to sufficiently maintain his abstinence.  In light of these concerns, the DOE psychologist testified that the individual’s prognosis is guarded to fair, and opined that he has not yet achieved adequate rehabilitation.  She also opined that the individual’s personality patterns regarding his candor have not yet been resolved.  The Administrative Judge was persuaded by the testimony of the DOE psychologist that the individual has not yet achieved adequate rehabilitation.  Thus, she was convinced that the individual has not sufficiently resolved the DOE’s security concerns under Guidelines G and I. She therefore concluded that the individual’s access authorization should not be restored. OHA Case No. PSH-17-0062 (Kimberly Jenkins-Chapman).