PSH-22-0104 - In the Matter of Personnel Security Hearing

Access Authorization not restored; Guidelines G (Alcohol Consumption),  and J (Criminal Conduct)

On August 12, 2022, an Administrative Judge (AJ) determined that an Individual's access authorization under 10 C.F.R. Part 710 should not be restored.  The Individual had a history of five alcohol-related arrests.  After the most recent arrest, for Driving Under the Influence of Alcohol, an LSO requested that the individual be  evaluated by a DOE-contracted Psychologist who found that the Individual   had met the criteria for Alcohol Use Disorder, Moderate-Severe (AUD), set forth in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders - Fifth Edition (DSM-5) and that the Individual was neither reformed not rehabilitated. 

The AJ found that the Individual had clearly recognized the scope and seriousness of his AUD, and was highly committed to maintaining his sobriety.  The AJ further found that the Individual had built a strong support system and sober social network.  The AJ noted that for the past five months, the Individual had been doing everything he should be doing to address his alcohol problem.  However, the AJ found, at the time of the hearing, the Individual had only been sober for five months.   Given the Individual's history, where he first returned to using alcohol after a 17-year hiatus, and then recently used alcohol twice in violation of his probation requirements, while being constantly monitored for alcohol use, the AJ concluded that this short period of sobriety is not sufficient to demonstrate a clear and established pattern of abstinence. 

The AJ further concluded that the Individual's criminal activity concerns were inextricably linked to his AUD, noting that all five of his arrests, his two probation violations, and his operation of a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol, involved alcohol and were clearly symptomatic of his AUD.  Moreover, the AJ found,  the Individual's recent and repetitive use of alcohol in violation of his probation requirements provided  an additional example of the Individual's AUD causing him to engage in criminal activity.  Accordingly, the AJ found  that  since the Individual had not convincingly shown that he was rehabilitated or reformed from his AUD, he had not yet shown that the root cause of his criminal activity had been successfully addressed. 
  
The AJ therefore concluded that the Individual's access authorization should not be restored.