PSH-22-0045 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On May 17, 2022, an Administrative Jude determined that the Individual's access authorization should be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual is employed by a DOE contractor in a position that requires her to hold a security clearance. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption. The LSO alleged that in April 2021, the Individual was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) and other related charges. The LSO further alleged that a DOE Psychologist evaluated the Individual and opined in a report that the Individual habitually or binge consumes alcohol to the point of experiencing impaired judgement. Further, as a result of impairment or intoxication, the Individual is placed in a position of compromised judgement or reliability.

At the hearing, the Individual, her counselor, her Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) sponsor, her husband, and the DOE Psychologist testified. The testimony and the evidence in the record revealed that the Individual acknowledged her maladaptive alcohol use and sought counseling and joined her local AA chapter the same month she received the DOE Psychologist's report. Further, she began abstaining from alcohol in September 2021 and entered a plea agreement to dispose of the charges recounted in the Notification Letter. Among other things, the agreement required her to submit to drug and alcohol tests. All tests were negative. The Individual enjoyed a strong support system in her family and her sponsor, and experienced benefits from sobriety, like an improvement in her marriage and weight loss. She engaged in hobbies that did not include alcohol consumption and was appropriately engaging in counseling and AA meetings. At the hearing, the DOE Psychologist indicated that the Individual had complied with the recommendations he had made in his report, and as a result, showed adequate evidence of rehabilitation and reformation. Accordingly, he felt the Individual had a good prognosis. The counselor's assessment was consistent with that of DOE Psychologist's, in that the counselor confirmed that the Individual has implemented the DOE Psychologist's recommendations, and further, he opined that the Individual has a low risk of relapse. Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated Guideline G concerns. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0045, Rahimzadeh)