PSH- 22-0056 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On April 25, 2022, an Administrative Judge determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The Individual was arrested and charged with Driving Under the Influence (DUI) in 2021. She pleaded guilty and was sentence to twelve months of probation. In her response to a letter of interrogatory issued by the local security office, the Individual admitted to becoming intoxicated monthly and to needing to consume large quantities of alcohol to become intoxicated. A DOE-contracted Psychologist (DOE Psychologist) conducted a clinical interview of the Individual and determined that she met the diagnostic criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD), Moderate, under the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition . The DOE Psychologist recommended that the Individual demonstrate rehabilitation by participating in an intensive outpatient rehabilitation program (IOP) followed by aftercare for a total of twelve months of treatment, participating in Alcoholics Anonymous, abstaining from alcohol for the duration of treatment, and documenting her abstinence from alcohol through laboratory testing. At the hearing, the Individual represented that she had abstained from alcohol for nearly three months and had enrolled in an alcohol treatment program. However, the DOE Psychologist opined that the Individual's treatment was not as rigorous as the IOP she had recommended and that she could not provide a favorable prognosis for the Individual's recovery. The Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns under Guideline G because of the short period of the Individual's claimed abstinence from alcohol and failure to comply with the DOE Psychologist's recommendations. The Administrative Judge also concluded that security concerns under Guideline J persisted because of the recency of the Individual's DUI and the risk of recurrence of the criminal conduct due to her unresolved AUD. Therefore, the Administrative Judge determined that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored. (OHA Case No. PSH- 22-0056, Harmonick)