PSH-22-0002 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On March 9, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that the Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored. The Individual had a history of two alcohol related arrests, a Driving Under the Influence (DUI) arrest in 2014 and a Driving While Intoxicated (DWI) arrest in 2019.

A Local Security Office (LSO) issued a Letter of Interrogatory (LOI) in 2019 to the Individual which specifically asked: "Other than your DWI arrest, has your use of alcoholic beverages caused you to be arrested or detained by police? If so, provide dates and details." The Individual submitted a response to the LOI (the Response) answering this question by stating: "No other arrest pertaining to alcohol," even though he had been arrested for DUI in 2014. The AJ found that the Individual's recent history of two alcohol-related arrests raised significant security concerns that must be sufficiently mitigated in order for the Individual to resolve those concerns arising under Guideline G.

At the hearing, the Individual attempted to mitigate the concerns raised by his two alcohol -related arrests by claiming that he had abstained from alcohol use for five months and that he had begun attending Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings on a weekly basis.   The AJ further found that while the Individual had testified that he had mitigated the concerns raised by his DUI and DWI by abstaining from alcohol use for the previous five months, completing an Alcohol Safety Program (ASP), and attending AA meetings, he had failed to sufficiently corroborate this testimony. The AJ noted that while the Individual's submission of four witness affidavits and the results of a PEth test administered to him on the date of the hearing provided some corroboration of this testimony, that evidence did not sufficiently convince the AJ that he has completely abstained from alcohol use during this five-month period. The AJ noted that none of the four witnesses that provided affidavits attesting that they had not observed the Individual consuming alcohol during this five -month period testified at the hearing and therefore were unavailable for cross -examination. The AJ further noted that while the Individual had submitted the results on one PEth test, that PEth test only showed that the Individual had not used significant amounts of alcohol during the last month of the five -month period in which he claimed he abstained from alcohol use. The AJ further found that even if the Individual had abstained from alcohol use for the five months prior to the hearing, he was not convinced that this period of time would suffice to resolve the security concerns raised by his two alcohol-related arrests, especially since the Individual had not received any significant intervention in the form of treatment or counseling and had a history of operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated after telling an OPM investigator that he does not drive after using alcohol. The AJ further noted that while the Individual had testified that he had begun attending AA meetings, he had not submitted any records of his attendance. Nor had he obtained an AA sponsor, purchased the Big Blue Book, or started the AA's Twelve Step program. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had successfully had not mitigated the security concerns under Guideline G raised by his history of two alcohol -related arrests.

The AJ found that the Individual's omission of his DUI arrest from his LOI Response raised a significant security concern under Guideline E. However, the AJ found that Individual credibly testified that this omission was inadvertent and that he had no intention of misleading the LSO when he omitted this information. The AJ noted that the Individual had previously reported his DUI in a previous security form submitted to the LSO. Accordingly, the AJ found that the Individual had successfully mitigated the security concerns under Guideline E raised by his omission.

The Administrative Judge therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0002, Fine)