PSH-22-0103 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

On September 23, 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 him to hold a security clearance to carry out specific work tasks. the Local Security Office (LSO) received potentially derogatory information regarding the Individual's alcohol consumption. The LSO made a number of allegations. Under Guideline G, the LSO alleged that: 1) On December 22, 2021, the DOE Psychologist diagnosed the Individual with AUD, Severe, pursuant to the DSM-V; 2) the DOE Psychologist's report indicated that for two years the Individual was consuming increasing amounts of liquor, reaching approximately 4.4 to 5.25 liters of liquor a week, causing the Individual problems in his professional and work life, and resulting in the "sever[e] impair[ ment] of [the Individual's] judgement, reliability, emotional stability, and trustworthiness "; 3) the Individual checked into a treatment facility on September 21, 2021 and was diagnosed with AUD, Severe; 4) the treatment facility concluded that the Individual was consuming approximately 24 shots of liquor a day, and he did "pose an imminent danger" to those around him while carrying out his official duties; 5) the DOE Psychiatrist indicated the Individual was in very early remission and made recommendations pursuant to this assessment; 6) the treatment facility indicated that the Individual was at severe risk of relapse and recommended outpatient treatment; and 7) the Individual " participated in alcohol treatment, counseling, and education on at least two previous occasions [,]" prior to the revocation of his clearance in the 1990s, suggesting that the Individual should have known to avoid the misuse of alcohol. Under Guideline E, the LSO alleged that: 1) the Individual informed personnel at the inpatient treatment facility that his alcohol consumption increased in 2017, which is inconsistent with what he reported to the DOE Psychologist; 2) the Individual told the investigator during the ESI that he had been consuming one alcoholic beverage two to three times per week, which appeared to be inconsistent with the information he gave personnel at the inpatient treatment facility; 3) the Individual told personnel at the inpatient treatment facility that he had not received any prior treatment or counseling, but stated during the ESI that he had participated in his employer's Employee Assistance Program Referral Option (EAPRO) after the 1993 DUI charge; 4) the Individual told personnel at the inpatient treatment center that he had never attempted to remain abstinent from alcohol before, but the EAPRO program required that the Individual remain abstinent from alcohol for two years; 5) the Individual completed 96 hours of treatment following his 1999 DUI charge, which he failed to disclose to personnel at the inpatient treatment facility; 6) although the Individual received treatment and/or counseling through EAPRO in 1993 and the 96 hours of treatment he received following his 1999 arrest, the Individual did not seek appropriate treatment in the years during which his alcohol intake increased, creating a security risk; and 7) some additional information the Individual provided to personnel at the inpatient treatment facility was inconsistent with the information he provided the DOE Psychologist.

At the hearing, the Individual and the DOE Psychologist testified. The evidence in the record established that the Individual had voluntarily sought treatment at an inpatient treatment facility, that he had been abstinent from alcohol for approximately eleven months, and that he had been participating in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings with the assistance of a sponsor. The Individual had also submitted three negative alcohol tests to bolster his assertion of ongoing abstinence. The Individual had also developed coping strategies and found incentives to remain abstinent. The DOE Psychologist testified that the Individual had shown adequate evidence of rehabilitation or reformation, and that the Individual was in sustained remission. The DOE Psychologist also testified that regarding the Individual's less than forthcoming behavior, he did not deem it a "character issue." Based on the evidence, the Administrative Judge concluded that the Individual had mitigated Guideline G concerns pursuant to the mitigating factor at ¶ 23(b) of the Adjudicative Guidelines. The Administrative Judge also determined that the Individual has mitigated the Guideline E concerns pursuant to the mitigating factor at ¶ 15(d), as the stressors, circumstances, or factors that caused his less than forthcoming behavior have been alleviated through treatment, and the alleged behavior was unlikely to recur due to the Individual's ongoing abstinence from alcohol. (OHA Case No. PSH-22-0103, Cronin)