PSH- 22-0049 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On May 19, 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 been diagnosed with Alcohol Use Disorder, Severe, after being hospitalized for a liver disorder caused by her excessive alcohol consumption. The Individual took the appropriate actions to address her AUD, enrolling in an inpatient treatment program (ITP), attending frequent Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings, obtaining an AA sponsor, working the AA's Twelve Step Program, undergoing individual psychotherapy, and attending an intensive outpatient program (IOP). Despite these actions, the Individual suffered a relapse just four months prior to the hearing. (Evidence in the record suggested that she may have suffered a second relapse just two months prior to the hearing). The AJ found that four months of sobriety was not a sufficient period to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence to mitigate the significant security concerns raised by the Individual's AUD, Severe, especially given her recent history of relapse.

The Individual had failed to timely report her enrollment in in the ITP to her local security office and her employer as required by Department of Energy Orders. When taking disability leave to attend the ITP, she merely indicated that she was attending to a medical issue. The AJ found that when the Individual testified about her failure to report her in -patient treatment for AUD in a timely manner, she tried to rationalize that behavior instead of acknowledging her lapse in judgment.  The AJ found that this testimony suggested that the Individual's judgment remained flawed.

During a interview with a DOE Psychiatrist, the Individual had admitted using alcohol during working hours. The AJ found that this behavior was clearly symptomatic of her AUD and noted the Individual had not shown that she has been reformed or rehabilitated from her AUD.  Moreover, the AJ found, the way the Individual tried to rationalize this behavior during her hearing testimony rather than acknowledge its problematic nature indicated her judgment remained flawed. (OHA Case No. PSH- 22-0049, Fine)