PSH-21-0071 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On August 24, 2021, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual should not be granted access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual submitted a Questionnaire for National Security Positions (QNSP) in 2017 and disclosed that he was convicted of Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol (DUI) Causing Injury in 2014. The Individual was sentenced to a five-year probation pursuant to which he was ordered not to consume alcohol. In August 2018, during an interview with an Office of Personnel Management (OPM) investigator, the Individual said that he had not consumed alcohol since his 2014 arrest for DUI. However, the Individual's wife revealed to an OPM investigator that he consumed alcohol to intoxication on a bi-monthly basis in violation of his probation. In a written submission to the local security office (LSO), the Individual admitted that he violated the terms of his probation by consuming alcohol, but represented that he only did so on special occasions and in moderation. The Individual met with a DOE-contracted psychologist (DOE Psychologist) for a clinical interview and the DOE Psychologist requested that the Individual undergo alcohol testing. Based on the results of the alcohol testing, as interpreted by a medical doctor, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment and recommend that the Individual abstain from alcohol for twelve months and pursue treatment. At the hearing, the Individual's wife testified that the Individual consumed an average of two to three alcoholic drinks weekly, became intoxicated four or five times in the past year, and was last intoxicated approximately one month prior to the hearing. The Individual denied that he consumed alcohol to intoxication based on his personal definition of intoxication and represented that he only consumed alcohol on special occasions based on an expansive definition of "special occasion." A toxicologist retained by the Individual testified that the DOE Psychologist and medical doctor drew improper inferences from the alcohol testing and that the results were consistent with moderate alcohol consumption. A DOE expert on alcohol testing conceded that the toxicologist's interpretation of the alcohol testing was sound. The DOE Psychologist withdrew his opinion that the Individual habitually consumed alcohol to the point of impaired judgment based on the new information regarding the alcohol testing. The Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's explanations for providing misleading information concerning his alcohol consumption were unreasonable and indicative of an intent to deceive . Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline E. Although the DOE Psychologist withdrew his opinion, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's regular consumption of alcohol in violation of the terms of his probation for the DUI offense and lack of insight into his problematic alcohol consumption presented unresolved concerns under Guideline G. Accordingly, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual should not be granted access authorization. Case No. PSH-21-0071 (Phillip Harmonick)