PSH-22-0057 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

Access Authorization Restored; Guideline G (Alcohol Consumption); Guideline J (Criminal Conduct)

On June 30, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization should not be restored under 10 C.F.R. Part 710. The DOE Local Security Office (LSO) discovered derogatory information regarding the Individual's arrest related to a domestic relationship with an ex-girlfriend, which prompted the LSO to request that the Individual be evaluated by a DOE-consultant psychiatrist ("Psychiatrist"). Subsequently, the LSO informed the Individual that it possessed reliable information that created substantial doubt regarding his eligibility to possess a security clearance because the derogatory information raised security concerns under Guideline G and Guideline J of the Adjudicative Guidelines.

At the conclusion of the hearing, the AJ determined that the LSO appropriately invoked Guideline G and Guideline J by citing to the Individual's arrest and the related circumstances in 2020 and 2021 and the Psychiatrist's opinion that the Individual met the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition criteria, for Alcohol Use Disorder (AUD) - Mild, without adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation.

The AJ also concluded the Individual did not resolve the security concerns for the following reasons. First, as to Guideline G, relatively little time had passed since the Individual stopped consuming alcohol, the evidence demonstrated that the Individual did not acknowledge a pattern of maladaptive alcohol use and the evidence did not demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence in accordance with treatment recommendations. For example, the Individual did not complete the treatment recommendations provided by the Psychiatrist and he did not participate in or complete a treatment program. Furthermore, the Psychiatrist did not provide a positive prognosis at the hearing, nor did the Psychiatrist conclude that the Individual had reformed or rehabilitated his AUD. Further still, the AJ did not conclude that the evidence regarding the frequency of his behavior or the circumstances under which it occurred weighed in favor of mitigation.

As to Guideline J, the AJ considered the Individual's factual disputes with the description of his behavior toward his ex-girlfriend and determined that the Individual's conduct still illustrated a pattern of concerning judgment. After each separate incident cited as a basis for concern, he had the opportunity to change his behavior. Instead, his conduct continued even after a night in jail and a workplace investigation in which he was admonished and instructed to change his behavior. Given the conflicting testimony and evidence, and based on the information in the record and the following analysis, the AJ concluded that the Individual had not resolved the security concerns generated by his conduct. First, the AJ concluded that insufficient time had elapsed to mitigate the concerns and the record did not demonstrate that the circumstances were unusual; instead, it appeared that the conduct arose out of the Individual's usual pattern of interaction with his ex -girlfriend. Second, there was no evidence in the record to conclude that the Individual was pressured or coerced into committing the various alleged acts listed in the SSC. Third, there was reliable evidence to support a finding that the Individual committed the various acts that form the basis of the security concern because the Individual did not deny some of the alleged behavior, and the local authorities saw fit to arrest and criminally charge the Individual based on the evidence they received.

Accordingly, the AJ concluded that the Individual did not resolve the Guideline G and Guideline J security concerns. OHA Case No. PSH-22-0057 (James P. Thompson III)